Skip to main content

Full text of "The true and the false infallibility of the popes : a controversial reply to Dr. Schulte"

See other formats















Late Bishop of St. Pollen, in Austria, and Secretary- General of the Vatican Council. 

A Work honoured by a Brief of Approbation from His Holiness 

Pope Pius \X. 

from % ^irfr duttan 






Extract from a Brief addressed tj Bishop Fessler by his Holiness Pope 

Pius IX. 
April 17, 1871. 

. . . . PEROPPORTUNUM autem et utilissimum existimavimus retudisse 
te audaciam Professoris Schulte incitantis saeculares Potestates ad- 
versus dogma Pontificiae infallibilitatis ab oecumenica Vaticana Syno- 
do definite. Non omnes enim, inter laicos praesertim, rei indolem 
perspectam habent ; et veritas luculenter exposita multas abigere so- 
let ab honestorum mentibus obliquas opiniones, saepe cum lacie 
haustas, nliosque confirmare in rectti sententia et adversus insidias 
munire. Quamobrem si hujusmodi commenta refellere pergas, op- 
time certe merebis de sanctissima religione nostra et Christiano po- 
pulo, quem, uti bonus Pastor, a venenatis pascuis abduces. Pergra- 
tum Nos tibi profitemur animurn, cum ob volumen oblatum, turn ob 
amantissimas litteras tuas ; tibique amplam apprecamur obsequii de- 
votionisque tuoe mercedem 


* ... WE esteem it a very opportune and useful thing to have beaten 
back the audacity of Professor Schulte, inciting as he does the secu 
lar powers against the dogma of Papal Infallibility, as denned by the 
Ecumenical Council of the Vatican. For it is a matter the true 
meaning of which, not all men, and especially not all laymen, have a 
thoroughly clear understanding of, and the truth, when lucidly set 
forth, is wont toexpelfrom properly constituted minds opinions which 
men perhaps have drunk in with their mother s milk, to confirm others 
in a right mind, and fortify them against insidious attacks. Where 
fore, if you continue to refute figments of this kind, you will deserve 
well of our most holy religion, and of all Christian people, in that, 
like a good pastor, you withdraw them from poisoned pastures. We 
make known to you, then, the great pleasure you have given Us, 
both by reason of the book which you have presented to Us, as well 
as by reason of your most affectionate letters; and Ve pray that you 

2 Papal Brief to Bishop Fessler. 

may receive a rich reward for your deference to Our authority and 
devotion towards Ourselves 

{Signed by the Pope s own hand?) 

NOTE. The fact of the Brief and its signature is derived from M. Anton. Erdinger, 
director of the Episcopal Seminary at St. Polten, author of the Life of Bishop Fessler, 
who sent a copy of it to M. Cosquin of the Francais, to whom I am indebted for these 
important notices. The Pope s Brief is not given entire, as the remainder of it has re 
ference solely to local diocesan affairs. 



THIS important work of the lamented Dr. Fessler, 
Bishop of St. Polten, or more properly St. Hippo- 
lytus, in Austria, who was .Secretary-General to the 
Vatican Council in the year 1870, and who, worn 
out with the fatigues of the Council, died two years 
afterwards, is now for the first time brought before 
the notice of English Catholics. 

Entitled by the good Bishop himself The True and 
False Infallibility of the Pope, it presents to the reader 
a perfect repertorium of all the stock objections 
and erroneous representations, both as regards the 
doctrine itself, and as regards the history of previous 
Papal rescripts and acts, that the fertile mind and 
extensive reading of Dr. Schulte, Professor of Canon 
and German Law in the University of Prague, could 
ingeniously pile together and misconstrue, in order 
to bring odium upon all Papal Bulls and Papal acts 
from, as he says, the time of Pope Gregory VII. 

These misstatements and misconstructions Bishop 
Fessler, with extraordinary labour and patience, has 
met and refuted one by one. The refutations re 
mained unanswered during the Bishop s lifetime, nor 
have we heard of Dr. Schulte having attempted any 
answer since his death, although he has gone on 
reiterating his former statements. It is the old story 

2 Introduction. 

of mumpsimus." Nevertheless, as this particular 
mumpsimus is of German extraction, it has been 
thought that it would not be amiss, while German 
meets German in this strife of the True and of the 
False Infallibility, they should carry on the battle in 
English, that we, who have an equal interest in the 
issue of the contest, may hear both sides, and judge 
for ourselves which is the true and which the false* 

And it is this which constitutes the special merit 
of Bishop Fessler s work, that, in this properly 
German quarrel, it states fairly all that Dr. Schulte 
has to say on his own side, so that although we have 
not actually his book before us, we can hear him 
speak both in the titles of the chapters and in the 
propositions brought forward, all of which are given 
in Dr. Schulte s own words; thus the reader, be he 
Catholic or be he Protestant, may see for himself 
what has been said on the part of those who have 
tried to make Infallibility impossible, by the process 
of reductio ad absurdum, and what by those who 
calmly and dispassionately have endeavoured to 
bring it back to its true significance. 

It is strange that, considering the general interest 
of the subject, the comprehensive character of the 
work, its general acceptation in Germany, and, last 
ly, the author s thorough knowledge of his subject, 
which his peculiar position during the Council, as 
its Secretary-General, enabled him to obtain, so valu 
able a work should have remained so long untrans 
lated. And this becomes the more remarkable when 
we consider that after the first edition had been sent 
to Rome, and there thoroughly examined and ap- 

Introduction. 3 

proved, the second and third editions were publish 
ed after the Pope himself had written to Bishop 
Fessler commending 1 him for having, by means of 
this work, as a good pastor done good service to 
our holy religion/ and exhorting him to go on 
bringing back Christian people from poisoned pas 
tures ; the particular poisoned pastures indicated 
by the Pope being evidently those false and exagge 
rated notions of Infallibility which Dr. Schulte and 
others of his stamp have been engaged in propagat 


It will be a further good result of the present con 
troversy if it brings us to see the danger of all exag 
gerated statements, even when made with good inten 
tions, for it is precisely to these statements that the 
now open adversaries of the Church appeal, in order 
to place the true doctrine before their dupes in an 
odious form. And this good result has already fol 
lowed from the French translation, edited by M. Em 
manuel Cosquin, editor of the Fran^ais. It has * put 
the question before many, who had been made anx 
ious by exaggerated statements, in a way which. ren 
dered it quite easy of acceptance. The existence of 
this translation was, I regret to say, not known to me 
until my own translation from the original was com 
pleted ; in fact the editor kindly sent me a copy 
when he saw my advertisement of the pamphlet in 
the "newspapers, accompanied with the obliging per 
mission to make use of his prefatory matter, his 
valuable notes from the Pastoral Instruction of the 
Swiss Bishops, and the useful and comprehensive in 
dex at the end of his edition. As a most valuable 

4 Introduction. 

confirmation of the position assumed by Bishop Fess- 
ler, I would refer my readers to M. Cosquin s two 
notes, which I have translated from the French, and 
appended to the second chapter of this work. 

That Bishop Fessler was really the exponent of the 
mind of most of the German Bishops, and in particu 
lar that his work exercised a special influence on the 
learned historian of the Councils, Mgr. Hefele, Bi 
shop of Rothenburg, will be sufficiently shown by the 
following letter, translated from the Gcnnania, the 
organ of the Catholics of Berlin, whose editor, Herr 
Majunke, although a deputy in the German Assembly, 
is now undergoing his sentence, as a confessor for the 
Faith, in a common German prison. 

Extract from the Roman correspondent of the Gcr- 
mania of Berlin, of Nov. 3, 1872 : 

Rome, Oct. 26. 

The letter of Bishop Hefele, which has lately 
been published, gave rise to an explanation on the 
part of this prelate; as a result of which the follow 
ing information came to my knowledge, which, on 
account of its high importance, I think I ought not 
to withhold from your readers, and so much the 
more as it concerns our lately deceased and univer 
sally honored Bishop of St. Polten. Mgr. Fessler, 
who was on very intimate terms with Dr. Hefele, 
the Bishop of Rothenburg, sent to him, accompanied 
with a most affectionate letter, expressive of all those 
feelings which he entertained towards him as a bro 
ther in the episcopal office, a copy of the work which 
he had composed On tJie True and False Infallibility of 

Introduction. 5 

the Popes, then just published by Sartori of Vienna. 
At the same time he had forwarded his pamphlet to all 
the other Bishops, no matter what opinion they 
might have held before the i8th of July 1870. From 
most of the Bishops Mgr. Fessler received the most 
sincere congratulations in respect of the work which 
he had just composed. The Bishop of St. Polten 
had also previously forwarded it to Pius IX. The 
Pope had thereupon directed a translation of it to be 
made into Italian, and instructed a commission of 
learned theologians of different nationalities to ex 
amine it, and report upon it. Both of these com 
mands were put into execution without delay. The 
Pope, made himself thoroughly acquainted with the 
contents of Bishop Fessler s work, and as his own 
judgment of it fully corresponded with the judg 
ment of the commission, he wrote a letter with his 
own hand to the Bishop of St. Polten, praising him 
for this highly valuable work, and begging him to 
persevere in the laborious task he had undertaken 
of correcting the erroneous opinions which had 
been spread abroad in various directions. Upon the 
receipt of this Brief Bishop Fessler published a second 
and third edition of his pamphlet. The Bishop of Ro- 
thenburg, however, had declared that although after 
a thorough examination he perfectly agreed in prin 
ciple with Fessler s defence of the Vatican definition 
against Dr. Schulte s pamphlet, still he doubted if the 
views there maintained would be accepted as sound at 
Rome. Hereupon the Bishop of St. Polten told him 
what had happened at Rome about his work, and men 
tioned that he had received from the Pope himself 9. 

6 Introduction. 

letter avowing his satisfaction with it; he also gave 
Mgr. Hefele this further consoling assurance, that 
both he himself and many other bishops who gave 
their votum in favour of Infallibility had held this 
view of the Infallibility of the Pope. The deceased 
prelate was, however, too simple and too modest to 
allow this Brief of the Holy Father to be printed in 
the preface to the second edition of his work. 

The same journal, the Gennania, adds the follow 
ing editorial comment on the above: The Pastoral 
Letter of the Bishop of Rothenburg of April 10, 
1871, in which he published the Vatican Decree, tes 
tifies to the correctness of our Roman correspondent, 
by the freq-uent quotations it makes of Bishop Fess- 
ler s work On tJie True and False Infallibility * 

It has been the apparently inevitable result of all 
Councils that whilst they have settled and confirmed 
the faith of many, they have left some still anxious 
as to the exact meaning of the definitions of the 
fathers there assembled, viz. whether they were to 
be interpreted with this or that limitation ; the ques 
tion with such persons being, not whether God had 
spoken by the Council, but whether in what the Coun 
cil had said, He had meant this or that. The Vatican 
Council has been no exception to this rule. But how 

* NOTE. As Bishop Hefele published his Pastoral in April 10, 
1871, and the Pope s Brief to Mgr. Fessler is dated April 27 of the 
same year, it is evident that Bishop Ilefele had become satisfied that 
Bishop Fessler s pamphlet expressed the true sentiments of the Holy 
See on the subject of Infallibility before the Pope s Brief readied its 

Introduction. j 

soon and how readily difficulties have been made up 
since the definition of the Infallibility of the Pope in 
his teaching office ! The chief country of these diffi 
culties was Germany, and what has been the spectacle 
presented to our view since the .definition of In 
fallibility, and the publication of Bishop Fessler s 
pamphlet upon its true meaning ? Those Bishops 
who doubted the opportuneness of the definition, or 
who in other ways hesitated to receive it, and who, for 
conscience sake, absented themselves from the final 
and decisive session,* have since become the chief con 
fessors and witnessess of the doctrine, before a cruel 
and persecuting government! Nor has any word of 
reproach against the Council or the Holy See es 
caped them in their many trials. Never has an Epis 
copate been more unanimous, or more patiently 
endured persecution for the faith. On the other 
side, viz. of those who have denied the authority of 
the living Church, speaking in her last and most 
numerous assembly, what is the spectacle which is 
presented to us by Dr. Schulte and his friends at the 
present moment ? Not content with assailing the 
Vatican Council and Pope Pius IX., they assail all 
Councils, all sayings and doings of Popes since the 
first eight centuries, differing therein in nothing but 
name from other Protestant and heretical sects, whose 
principle is really identical with their own. Both 
the one and the other have their reward : the one, 
the Archbishop of Cologne, is earning a martyr s 

* See the account given by Bishop Fessler of their conduct, in the 
first chapter of his work. 

8 Introduction. 

crown in the common gaol, condemned like a felon 
to forced labour ; * the other, Dr. Schulte, has been 
rewarded with a professorship at the University of 
Bonn ! 

Here I will conclude this Introduction with a 
short notice of this gentleman, Bishop Fessler s op 
ponent, Dr. Schulte, whose name has so much pro 
minence in the following pages ; it is taken from 
M. Cosquin s introduction to the French trans 

Dr. Schulte is a Westphalian by birth, up to the 
present time (1873) Professor of Canon and German 
Law at the University of Prague, and a short time 
since appointed by the Prussian Government to a 
chair at the University of Bonn. For a long time he 
enjoyed a well-earned reputation as a canonist, not 
only by reason of his erudition and the originality 
which distinguished his works, but also by his strict 
orthodoxy. The only reproach brought against his 
writings was their incompleteness, and the obscure 
form into which they were thrown. About the year 
1862, tendencies to unsound doctrines manifested 
themselves in him, and from the year 1868 these 
tendencies became more and more pronounced. In 
1869 his hand was thought to be seen in the odious 
compilation, the Pope and the Council, published 
under the assumed name of " Janus." Finally, at 
the commencement of 1871 he published under his 
own name the first of a number of pamphlets, by 

* See Tablet newspaper, Dec. 26. Paul Melchers (the Archbishop) 
entered on the prison books as strawplaiter. 

Introduction. g 

which he has gained for himself a sad renown 
amongst the enemies of the Church. This pamphlet, 
published at Prague, has the interminable title: 
" The" Power of the Roman Popes over Princes, 
Countries, Peoples, and Individuals examined by the 
Light of their Doctrines and their Acts since the 
Reign of Gregory VII., to serve for the apprecia 
tion of their Infallibility, and set face to face with 
contradictory doctrines of the Popes and the Coun 
cils of the first Eight Centuries." 

On the appearance of this pamphlet there was a 
burst of admiration from all the " free-thinking 
journals of Austria and imperial Germany. One 
Vienna newspaper, the Press, declared that all the 
attacks which had been hitherto directed against the 
doctrine of Infallibility were but as the pricking of a 
pin in comparison with the terrible blows dealt by 
the mace of Dr. Schulte. 

* This pamphlet Mgr. Fessler thought it his duty 
not to leave unanswered, which gave rise to the com 
position of the work which is now presente-d to our 

In this refutation the able prelate follows step by 
step, chapter by chapter, the reasoning of his oppo 
nent, pointing out the unfair treatment which the in 
struction given by the Council meets with at his 
hands ; explaining at the same time the true doc 
trine, re-establishing the true import of the facts ad 
duced, and cautioning his readers against false inter 
pretations of them. When, with a somewhat slow, 
perhaps, but sure progress, he has arrived at the end 
of his elucidations, he draws his inevitable conclu- 

io Introduction. 

sions, and of this whole work of Dr. Schulte there 
remains NOTHING. 

Dr. Schulte had asserted that the definition of 
the Infallibility of the Pope has completely altered 
the relations between the spiritual and the temporal 
power. The object of his work was, as he says, "to 
show governors and governed what a Catholic is in 
conscience obliged to believe if he admits the Infalli 
bility of the Pope." So he drew up from the decla 
rations and acts of the Popes of the Middle Ages a 
catalogue of what he called doctrinal propositions, 
which he presented to his horror-stricken readers as 
the decisions of the Infallible teaching office of the 
Sovereign Pontiffs, and so, of course, since the Coun 
cil of the Vatican, as Catholic dogmas. If it can be 
shown th at all that Dr. Schulte so laboriously quotes 
has nothing whatever to do with Infallibility, his 
book is answered, and falls as a dead letter. This 
feat it is that Mgr. Fessler has so victoriously per 
formed. The result of an investigation of passage 
after passage, quoted by Dr. Schulte, shows that 
they none of them can be regarded as infallible defi 
nitions on faith and morals. Accordingly, Catholics 
when they accept, as is their duty, the constitution 
of the Council on the Infallible teaching office of the 
Roman Pontiff, are in no wise bound to believe what 
Dr. Schulte asserts they are, in regard to these as 
sumed doctrinal propositions of Popes. 

Mgr. Fessler might have confined himself to this 
reply. But in behalf of those of his readers who 
might possibly have been perplexed regarding cer 
tain acts and declarations of Popes quoted by Dr. 

Introduction. T T 

Schulte, although those acts and declarations do not 
constitute an object of the Catholic faith, the pru 
dent Bishop has not neglected to indicate in a few 
short remarks at the end of his work the principal 
points of view, from which a right appreciation of 
these acts, &c., may best be obtained. Such in the 
abstract is the work of Mgr. Fessler, in which he has 
refuted by anticipation the theories which, with so 
much assurance, M. de Bismarck brought before his 
audience in the discourse which he pronounced in 
the Prussian Upper House on the loth of March last, 
1873. Important documents well known in France, 
the collective declaration of the German Bishops of 
May 1871, the " Pastoral Instruction of the Swiss 
Bishops, have already set the principles drawn out 
in form by Mgr. Fessler before the eyes of such of 
my readers who are not theologians. People have 
seen in a general way how these principles have to 
be applied to Bulls and other Papal documents, of 
which the adversaries of Infallibility endeavour to 
avail themselves. But the great advantage of this 
work of Mgr. Fessler, and that which gives it a par 
ticular interest, is the application this author makes 
of these principles to such numerous examples. All 
that the adversaries of the doctrine have drawn from 
history in order to assail it has furnished the illustri 
ous prelate with the opportunity of placing these 
very facts in their true light. Thus has he been 
able to show to men of good-will, but hitherto im 
perfectly instructed in the matter, that the doctrine 
against which their understanding rebelled is not the 
true Infallibility defined by the Council of the Vati- 

1 2 Introduction. 

can, but the creation of ignorance and of passion in 
fact, " a false Infallibility." 

With these concluding words of the distinguished 
editor of the Fran$ais the work of Bishop Fessler is 
presented to the reader, in the hope that he will de 
rive the same comfort and edification which it has 
afforded to many others. 



Edgbaston, Jan. 10, 1875. 



WHEN the publisher, a few weeks after the appear 
ance of the first edition of my answer to Dr. 
Schulte, brought me the information that a second 
edition was required, and at the same time inquired 
of me whether I wished to alter anything, I told him 
I knew of nothing I wished to alter except a few 
misprints and particular words. 

Since then, however, there has appeared a second 
enlarged edition of the work of Dr. Schulte, but as 
no notice was taken in it of my reply, this must be, I 
suppose, because both works were passing through 
the press at the same time. Dr. Schulte has made 
several additions to his second edition, which for the 
most part are only directed to confirm or enlarge the 
ground of the assertions he has made in his first. 

There are, however, some new doctrinal state 
ments of Popes, discovered by him and added in 
this second edition, which for the careful reader of 
my answer to his first work require no further 
refutation, since at least according to the principles 
laid down by me in my answer, and which are not 
disputed by either side, they cannot be regarded as 
ex cathedra utterances, and accordingly do not belong 
to the subject in hand. I mention, by way of 
example of such new Papal doctrinal statements, 

14 Preface. 

The Pope has the right to determine for persons 
how they ought to dress (p. 64 of Dr. S. s work); 
and more strange still, ; That in religious questions 
according to the teaching of Pope Leo the Great, the 
Emperor is infallible (p. 1 1 1 of his work). The latter 
assertion appeared to me certainly a trifle somewhat 
too scandalous, and to the honour of this great Pope 
I thought that I ought to go into the proofs of this 
wonderful assertion. But in a lucky moment I per 
ceived that Dr. Schulte did not mean his words to be 
taken in earnest, and that he only wished to show 
what strange things on the subject of Infallibility 
migfht be deduced from the misunderstood or mis- 


interpreted words of ancient writers, when people 
choose to interpret them in a passionate and irrational 
way. This, I say, broke upon me, and so I renounced 
my intention, and I am satisfied now to regard the 
statement that in religious questions, according to 
the doctrine of Pope Leo the Great, the Emperor is 
infallible, as an historical curiosity, which it would be 
as superfluous for me to refute, as it would be weari 
some to the reader for me to attempt. One utterance 
of this holy Pope I will not, however, omit, and it 
struck me, on a fresh perusal of his letters, as very 
appropriate here. He says, Verae fidei sufficit scire, 
quis doceat, - -< For the true faith it is enough to 
know who is the teacher. But then he is not here 
speaking of the Emperor, but of the Pope and the 

But if the second edition of the pamphlet of Dr. 
Schulte has given occasion to no alterations in this 
third edition of my own work, the remarks of some 

Preface, \ 5 

others have reached me which will afford me the 
opportunity I desire, both of illustrating and of 
defending the position I have taken in my pamphlet. 
A Vienna reviewer, amidst some cavils which have 
no great point in them, thus expresses himself: The 
sum and substance of the matter on which, according 
to Schulte, all depends is the question " Whether 
the dogma of Papal Infallibility really reaches to 
that extent which he assigns to it ? The principle 
here involved Fessler does not contest with his 
opponent ; he admits that not only all future but 
all earlier utterances of Popes, if they have been 
made ex catJicdrd in the sense already explained, have 
a claim to the privilege of Infallibility. 

This is true, of course ; but then what this re 
viewer designates as the bone of contention between 


myself and Dr. Schulte, and wherein he says I admit 
Dr. Schulte s principle/ is really no question or bone 
of contention at all between us. On this point the 
supporters as well as the adversaries of Papal Infalli 
bility are agreed, viz., that the definition upon the 
Infallible teaching: office of the Roman Pontiff com- 


prehends all former as well as all future Popes. No 
one whatever in the Vatican Council has been guilty 
of the theological absurdity of wishing to "define that 
only Pius IX. and his successors were infallible, to 
the exclusion of all former Popes. The question at 
issue is quite of a different kind. It is whether the 
definition de fide of the Vatican Council upon the 
Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff ex 
tends to all the different expressions which a Pope 
may ever casually have uttered, either as Briefs or 

1 6 Preface. 

otherwise, and even to acts of the Popes ; or 
whether this dc fide definition extends solely to those 
utterances of Popes in past as well as future times, 
wherein all the notes, prescribed as belonging to 
definition on matters of faith, combine, so as to create 
an infallible Papal dc fide definition. This is the 
question, and in the solution of this I cannot concede 
an iota to Dr. Schulte, because I have learnt in 
the Catholic Church not to explain away (denteln*) 
a definition of a General Council (as an Augsburg 
reviewer unjustly says I do), but to hold to it exactly 
and with all my strength, TO ADD NOTHING TO IT, 
but at the same time to DETRACT NOTHING FROM IT. 
This is the position I assume in this work of mine, 
this is the gist of the question between me and my 

The same reviewer as he proceeds in his remarks 
is guilty of making a certain mischievous confusion 
and perversion of theological ideas, which he hides 
behind expressions quite foreign to the subject. He 
says : The one, Fessler, draws his proofs according 
to mere theory ; the other, Schulte, deals simply and 
solclv with the practical historical point of view; 
and he adds, * the only real contest between the two 
lies in the purely theoretical treatment of Infallibility, 
and in its practical application. To treat the matter 
in this way is simply to misunderstand the real point 
at issue, for what the reviewer calls * practical appli 
cation really means that straightforward obedience 
and true submission which a Catholic ought to pay 
to the directions and. definitions of the Pope. 

But it was not the Vatican Council that first 

Preface. i / 

introduced this idea of obedience and submission. 
This obligation has existed time out of mind in the 
Catholic Church, and follows from the very nature 
of the Primacy. That, however, which was denned 
in the Vatican Council is another matter altogether, 
and it is this : that the doctrinal decisions of the 
Pope upon faith and morals, provided with all those 
notes which were prescribed in the well-weighed 
definition of the Council, are free from error. This 
definition of the Council has indeed its theoretical, 
as well as its practical side : the theoretical asserts 
that such doctrinal decisions of the Pope, made 
through God s assistance, are free from error; the 
practical side requires that eve?*y Catholic should, 
with a full conviction of their perfect and certain 
truth, devoutly accept them with that faith which 
belongs to truth revealed by God, and deposited in 
His Holy Church. I may spare myself the trouble 
of a longer exposition of this distinction which has 
its basis in theology, since the learned Bishop of 
Paderborn, Conrad Martin, has explained it so clearly 
and systematically in his work, The True Meaning of 
tJie Vatican Definition on the Infallible Teaching Office 
0ft/ie Pvfle (Padei born, 1871). 

An Augsburg reviewer takes objection to my ex 
pression: It is by no means an established fact 
amongst Catholic theologians, that the Syllabus with 
its eighty propositions belongs to those definitions 
of doctrine which are to be characterised as infalli 
ble ; and is of opinion that in saying this I show that 
the notes cannot be relied on, which I have given to 
make it plain how an utterance of the Pope may be 

1 8 Preface. 

recognised as ex cathedra. I, on the contrary, find that 
in this case, as in a hundred others, we can fully rely 
on the notes which have been given, for they are 
really good and sound notes, but yet, notwithstand 
ing this, the application of these notes to particular 
cases may have its difficulties. It is the business of 
the science of theology to support the different -views 
which may be taken of this question by such argu 
ments as it has at its command, and probably in this 
way to bring it to pass that the rignt view should 
become the generally received view. 

Should this not take place, then the authoritative 
decision on the matter may at any time follow. 
Before the Vatican Council was summoned, a Catho 
lic was bound to pay obedience and submission to 
the Syllabus; nor has the Vatican Council in any re 
spects altered this conscientious obligation. The 
only question which could arise was, whether the 
Syllabus possesses those notes on the face of it, 
which, according to the doctrinal definition of the 
fourth session of the said Council, belong to an utter 
ance of the Pope ex cathedra. 

The Syllabus, as its title shows, is nothing but a 
collection of those errors of the age that we live in, 
which Pope Pius in earlier Rescripts of different dates 
has declared to be errors, and which accordingly he 
has condemned. The condemnation of errors, accord 
ing to the traditional practice of the Church, is made 
in various forms: sometimes they are condemned as 
heretical ; sometimes as savouring of heresy ; some 
times as schismatic; sometimes simply as erroneous, 
or false ; sometimes as dangerous, or scandalous, or 

Preface. 19 

perverse; sometimes as leading to heresy, or to 
schism, or to disobedience to ecclesiastical superiors. 
When a particular doctrine has been condemned by 
the Pope as heretical in the way designated by the 
doctrinal definition of the Vatican Council, speaking 
of the Infallible teaching office of the Pope ; then, 
indeed, there can be no doubt that we have under 
these circumstances an utterance of the Pope ex 
catJiedrd. But as in the Syllabus, through the whole 
catalogue of eighty propositions, designated generally 
in the title as Errors (Syllabus crroruni), there is 
nothing to show, as was pointed out above, under 
what category of condemned propositions, according 
to old ecclesiastical usage, a particular error falls, we 
are compelled to have recourse to the records or 
sources, in which the particular propositions of the 
Syllabus have been on previous occasions condemned 
by Popes, in order to learn whether it is condemned 
simply as erroneous, or whether it has some other 
designation, and notably whether it has been con 
demned as heretical. 

The Augsburg reviewer further remarks, that 
whilst I blame Dr. Schulte for picking out the mere 
words of the definition, when he quotes the doctrinal 
definition of the Vatican Council on the subject of 
the Infallible teaching office of the Pope, and ex 
cluding the introduction and the reason for the 
definition, I complain of him further on, for printing 
the ivhole of the Bull Unain Sanctam. As it is here 
laid to me that I am acting inconsistently, I must de 
fend myself from this charge. What it seemed 
to me I had a right to require of Dr. Schulte as an 

2O Preface. 

author was, that he should treat alike the dogmatic 
definition of the Vatican Council, and the Papal Con 
stitution Unam Sanctam, by doing as I had done my 
self, viz. by pointing out that in both cases the defini 
tion de fide really commences after the solemn formu 
la definimns ; that in both the introduction was very 
important, not however that it was to be looked 
upon as the definition itself. Nor can I ever think it 
right that Dr. Schulte should leave out and pass sub 
silentio the introduction to the decree of the Vatican 
Council, calculated as it is to quiet people s minds, 
and, on the other hand, give entire the introduction 
of the Bull Unam Sanctam, this introduction being of a 
character to disquiet people ; and what is still more 
unjustifiable, that he should treat this introduction 
as a doctrinal definition. And I think I have good 
reason to express my dissatisfaction at a proceeding, 
the sole object of which was to increase prejudices 
which were already at work, and to create a sensa 
tion in people s minds ; surely a very unjustifiable 
proceeding, when the position a man assumes is that 
of one who is engaged in an impartial scientific 

Another reviewer objects to my statement, that 
the Bull of Paul IV., Cum ex Apostolatus officio, of Feb. 
15, 1559, i n t a doctrinal definition, not an utterance 
of the Pope ex catJiedrd, but merely a disciplinary 
statute, and he adds that my proof of this is nothing 
but the title of the Bull ; so he concludes: Accord 
ing to this theory it is not the contents of a Rescript, 
but the whim of the rubrical commentator upon it, 
that has to decide upon the right of a Papal Bull 

Preface. 2 1 

to be considered as an ex catlicdrd utterance, and thus 
to determine the gravest questions of conscience! 
Miserable subterfuge ! 

Here I must be allowed, in a few words, to throw 
some light upon this passage of my critic, in order to 
show up his dishonest way of conducting a contro 
versy. He says that I bring forward nothing but 
the title of the Bull in the Bullarium, so that it is 
not the contents of the Bull but the whim of the 
rubrical commentator which has to decide upon the 
properties of a Papal Bull ; and he permits himself 
to bewail my miserable subterfuge. What I really 
said was, p. 88, This title, which gives a true ac 
count of its contents, is of itself enough, &c. No 
one surely could direct attention to the contents of 


the Bull in question more plainly and definitely than 
I did in these words; but at the same time, to make 
it quite clear to my readers that the Bull really is a 
penal enactment, the following words out of the con 
tents of the Bull itself will not be out of place here. 
Sec. 2 of the Bull says: Habita cum S.R.E. Car- 
dinalibus deliberatione matura, de eorum consilio et 
unanimi assensu omnes et singulas excommunicatio- 
nis, suspensions, et interdict!, ac privationis, et quas- 
vis alias sententias, censuras et pcenas a quibusvis 
Romanis Pontificibus praedecessoribus nostris, aut 
pro talibus habitis, etiam per eorum literas extrava- 
gantes, seu sacris Conciliis ab Ecclesia Dei receptis, 
vel Sanctorum Patrum decretis et statutis. aut sacris 
Canonibus ac Constitutionibus et Ordinationibus 
Apostolicis contra hsereticos aut schismaticos quo- 

22 Preface. 

modolibet latas, et promulgatas Apostolica auctori- 
tate approbamus et innovamus, &c.* 

The words of the contents of the Bull in question 
which I have here printed form also the title of this 
Bull, as I quoted in p. 88 of my pamphlet ; this any 
one may easily convince himself of by comparing 
the words in both places. And yet it is in this very 
case that my opponent ventures openly to assert 
that I have made use of a miserable subterfuge in 


drawing my proofs not from the contents of the bull, 
but from the title alone ; the fact being that I did 
expressly refer to the contents, and only for the sake 
of brevity quoted the words of the title, which were 
identical with the contents, instead of the contents 
of the Bull, which I have just given to my readers. 
These are the sort of opponents with whom one has 
to deal. When this same opponent of the Vatican 
definition further says, Bishop Fessler himself does 
not venttfre to deny that the Bull concerns doctrine 
de moribns* I answer, * The contents of this Bull con 
cern morals certainly, if you reckon all penal enact 
ments as doctrine de moribus. Whether my oppo 
nent does so or not, I do not know. But this I do 
know, that mere penal enactments do not befong to 
the infallible doctrinal definitions de fide et moribus, 
of which the definition of the Vatican Council on the 
Infallible office of the Pope treats, and that this Bull 
of Paul IV. is a penal enactment and not a doctrinal 
definition. If he will take the trouble to read 
through the old Roman and later imperial penal 

* Bullar. Rom. edit. Coquelines, Romse, apud Mainardi, 1745, t. iv. 

P- P- 355 

Preface. 23 

enactments against heretics, he will find whence the 
specially designated penalties are derived to which 
he takes objection in this Bull of Paul IV. 

When the Augsburg reviewer says in conclusion : 
It is impossible to discover from what, according to 
Dr. Fessler, a person is to draw the perfect removal 
of his apprehensions; no proof, no logical reason is 
presented to us that anything which a Pope solemn 
ly enunciates, which he has had signed by the Car 
dinals and sent to all Bishops, may not have the 
weight of a definition in the sense of the Vatican 
Council, I thereupon point to the simple, literal, 
dogmatic, and logical explanation of the meaning of 
the definition of the Council in pages 55 to 60 of my 
pamphlet as the proof and logical reason for my 
statement. Indeed, I know no proof which could be 
more complete, and no reason which could better 
meet all the requirements of sound logic. And up 
to this time this exposition of the subject has been 
contested by neither side. 

Another reviewer thinks he has discovered the 
following contradiction, as he calls it, in my pam 
phlet, because in p. 73 I assert that the well-known 
Brief Multipliers inter of Pius IX., one of the most 
important sources of the Syllabus, in which certain 
doctrines amongst others are condemned as heretical, 
is not a dogmatic definition ; and yet on p. 84 I 
admit that it is a sure sign in theology of a dogmatic 
definition, if a doctrine is condemned by the Pope as 
heretical. Here I do not know that I can do better 
than publicly request the learned discoverer of this 
contradiction to be so good as to name to me one single 

24 Preface. 

doctrine which is declared expressly by the Pope in 
the Brief Mult ip lie es inter to be heretical. If he does 
this, I will readily admit him to be right, but not 

Finally, to those of my readers who are anxious 
about the fidelity of quotations from the Holy Scrip 
tures, I must acknowledge my obligation to give 
them a trifling explanation. The question concerns 
the words of Christ to St. Peter: I have prayed for 
thee that thy faith fail not ; and do thou in turn one 
day strengthen thy brethren (p. 49) , upon which 
translation the Augsburg reviewer remarks : The 
author quotes, we know not why, the passage incor 
rectly, for it runs, " Do thou, when thou hast con 
verted thyself, strengthen," &c. I will tell him 
why I quoted this passage as I did. I did so be 
cause, following Dr. Schulte, I made use of Dr. 
Molitor s translation of the Dogmatic Constitution 


upon the Church of Christ without alteration, as 
the attentive reader will have already observed from 
my pamphlet itself, where I expressly said so, and 
because this translation of Dr. Molitor gives this 
passage as it appears in my work, p. 49. The re 
viewer may see the reasons why this passage is so 
translated by consulting those commentators on 
Scripture who have paid particular attention to the 
Hebrew modes of speech. 




WHEN a man, who for a course of years has passed 
for a true son of the Catholic Church and a zealous de 
fender of her rights, suddenly turns against the Pope 
and Bishops with the sharpest weapons he can com 
mand, no one can deny that this is a painful sight for 
every one who loves his Church. Enemies of the 

Church will, indeed, rejoice, and eagerly greet his ac 
cession to their own ranks. Such a man is Dr. Schulte, 
Professor of Canon and German Law at the University 
of Prague, who has just published a pamphlet with this 
high-sounding title, * The Power of the Roman Pon 
tiffs over Sovereigns, Countries, Peoples, Individuals, 
according to their Doctrines and Acts, held up to the 
Light, in order to afford persons the means of making 
a true estimate of their claim to Infallibility. Mis 
leading indeed is the light this pamphlet holds up for 
our guidance, the subject being really presented to our 
view in a light wholly false and extremely repulsive. 
Surely love of truth imperatively requires that so grave 
a subject should at any rate be represented in its just 
and fair light ; and this is the object the author of the 

following pages has set before himself, viz. to present 


26 The Trite and tlie False 

the subject to his readers, without passion and without 
partiality, with that knowledge which many years 
study, and an exact acquaintance with facts and cir 
cumstances, enable him to do. 

The subject, as treated by Dr. Schulte, is divided 
into the following heads: 

I. * Exposition of the subject as introduction. 

II. * The contents of the definition of the Vatican 
Council, " On the Infallible teaching Office of the Ro 
man Pontiff." 

III. Part I. Doctrinal propositions of Popes 
simply ex cathedra, and their acts in relation to states, 
countries, peoples, and individuals/ 

III. Part 2. Relations of Popes to the state-law. 
Treatment of heretics.* 

IV. Pleas devised to quiet the conscience, and 
their confutation. 

V. * Considerations on the law of the state. f 

* This division, being made for the convenience of English read 
ers, is given in the words of the Translator. 

fit must be borne in mind that the headings of the chapters are 
all taken from Dr. Schulte s pamphlet ; if not in his own words, at 
least in their substance. TRANSLATOR. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 27 



I. THE general exposition of the subject with which 
my opponent, Dr. Schulte, opens his attack upon the 
Church commences with a German translation of the 
Address of several of our archbishops and bishops, 
issued under the date of April 10, iS/o.* This Ad 
dress entreats the President of the General Con 
gregation of the Council not to bring on for con 
sideration, or to decide the question of the 
Infallibility of the Pope, before the question as 
to the power of the Holy See in temporal mat 
ters, or rather, as to the relative position of the 
ecclesiastical and political power, has been thoroughly 
weighed in all its bearings, and put to the test. These 
prelates, it seems, thought it desirable that the ques 
tion whether Christ our Lord had cnven to St. Peter 


and his successors the power over kings and realms 
should first be laid before the Council, and thus that 
the relation of the ecclesiastical to the temporal power 
should first be made matter of mature deliberation. 
He adds himself that this Address produced no 

Accordingly, this Address of certain archbishops 

*I ought to sny that with respect to this address of April 10, 1870, 
I have not had at hand any copy of it, except the translation of Dr. 
Schulte himself, which he assures us is perfectly correct. 

28 The True and the False 

and bishops is at once the shield or bulwark behind 
which Dr. Schulte shelters .himself, and the ground on 
which he rests, in order to open his attack upon the 
Pope. The Bishops to whom he refers having- acknow 
ledged it to be the principal task of the Council to 
advance in the best way possible the greater glory of 
God, and the welfare of mankind in general, find it 
natural that in so great a body of men different opini 
ons should arise not, however, so different as to split 
them up into parties. Accordingly, out of the various 
difficulties presenting themselves in the consideration 
of the question of Papal Infallibility, they make par 
ticular mention of a specially weighty one, and this, 
their Address says, is a difficulty which directly 
touches the relationship of Catholic doctrine to civil 
society ; in the treatment of which subject some con 
tradiction might be expected to arise between the doc 
trine hitherto taught by them on the relationship be 
tween Church and State, and the conclusions which 
might follow from the doctrine of the Infallibility of 
the Pope. 

Well, it is a matter of fact that this difficulty was 
not separately considered, and it is also matter of fact 
that, in the matters treated of in the Council, the rela 
tions of Church and State power did not come first 
under consideration, but the doctrine respecting the 
Pope as the Foundation and visible Head of the Catholic 
Church. Whoever will look at the question without 
prejudice will see that there are clearly two different 
ways of viewing it viz. first, whether it is best to com 
mence with the Catholic doctrine respecting the Pope 
as the Foundation and visible Head of the Catholic 

Infallibility of the Popes. 29 

Church, and then afterwards with the doctrine respect 
ing the relations between Church and State, or vice 
versa ; that reasons can be alleged on both sides; and 
that the view that the doctrine respecting the Pope 
ought to take precedence is, at any rate, a well-ground 
ed one. 

But it may be said that, had this question of the 
relations of Church and State taken the precedence, 
difficulties touching the Infallibility of the Pope would 
have then been examined. No doubt they would ; 
and so they have been now, though not exactly in the 
form in which one portion of the Council wished and 
required. The discussion, which continued for many 
weeks, in which bishops of all countries took part, had 
this very object in view viz. to throw all possible 
light on the subject when considered on every side. 

But, continues Dr. Schulte, anyhow these difficul 
ties have not all been properly solved. 

To this I answer : If before doctrinal matters were 
decided in the Catholic Church, we had always had to 
wait until all difficulties were cleared away, General 
Councils would have had a long time to wait. When 
the Council of Nicaea declared that the doctrine, * The 
Son of God is very God, was a dogma of the faith, all 
difficulties were so far from being cleared away, that 
during four whole centuries, in which period flourished 
the greatest teachers .of doctrine the world has ever 
known Athanasius, Hilary, Basil, Ambrose those 
theologians had to put forth their whole strength in 
order to solve these difficulties. This has been the 
case with subsequent General Councils ; and it is the 
excellent and all-important task of the science of theo- 

30 The True and the False 

logy, after the authority of the teaching Church has 
solemnly and formally declared the truth revealed by 
God, to solve the difficulties which present themselves 
in respect of each particular doctrine, to aid every man 
to eicknowledge the truth himself, and to help to ob 
tain a victory for that truth in the world at large. 
After each dogmatic definition there have ever been 
found in the Catholic Church men, on the one hand, 
who contested the truth of the definition, and who en 
hanced its difficulty; and men who, on the other hand, 
have done their best to defend it, and who in the end 
have happily solved all difficulties which stood in the 
way of its general acceptance. The former have long 
since been subjected to the judgment of history and to 
the just judgment of God ; the latter, the Catholic 
Church names through all ages with honor, and these, 
too, have had their reward with God. 

2. The bishops who signed the address are, with 
the exception of four, not mentioned by name by Dr. 
Schulte. It is only said : It was signed by almost all 
the Austrian and Hungarian bishops, and by several of 
those German bishops who, since the Fulda pastoral of 
August 31, 1870, have been seeking, with a reckless arbi 
trary exertion of authority perfectly unintelligible, to in 
troduce this same doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope, 
so as to cause an open breach amongst Catholics. A 
severe taunt this, to use towards a portion of the German 
bishops ! to whose charge, moreover, he still further lays, 
that in their pastoral of 1870 they used no single word 
to imply that they themselves admitted the July doc 
trine in substance. And of these bishops he remarks : 
* After they had persistently and boldly declared their 

Infallibility of the Popes. 3 [ 

non placet up to the decisive day of July 13, they, to 
their disgrace, remained absent from the formal act of 
July 1 8 ; and this from mere human respect of per 

Here I must again say : These are hard words for a 
man of learning to fling publicly in the faces of Ger 
man, Austrian, and Hungarian archbishops and bishops 
viz. that, out of mere human and personal motives, 
they kept away from the solemn act of expressing their 
assent to a revealed truth. Such a hard judgment as 
this neither the Pope nor their brother bishops pro 
nounced upon them ; it has been reserved for a layman 
to constitute himself the judge of their consciences, 
and to raise this cry of scorn against bishops : * You 
stayed away from the solemn sitting of the Council, 
July 18, out of mere human respect. What avails it 
to say, * He doesn t blame them for it * ? The reproach 
of acting in so grave a matter from a motive of mere 
human respect is the greatest reproach that can be 
made to a bishop. 

Very different was the judgment of their brother 
bishops upon the cause of their absence. It is not in 
the General Congregation, but in the Solemn Session 
of the Council, that the decisive vote is given. This it 
is easy to see from the acts of General Councils. If 
even up to this point in the last General Congregation 
before the Solemn Session the bishop is not satisfied 
as to all his difficulties, or if he thinks it better that 
the decision should not yet be pronounced on such 
and such a doctrine, he may in the interval between 
the last General Congregation and the Solemn Session 
acquire a full conviction orj the subject by discoursing 

32 The Trite and the False 

with other theologians, by study of the subject, and by 
prayer, and may thus overcome his last difficulties, and 
see that it is well that the definition should be made. 
Nay, even if he cannot attain this full conviction and 
insight into the matter by any exertion of his own, he 
will wait for the decision of the Council with a calm 
trust in God, without himself taking part in it, because 
up to this point he lacks the necessary certainty of 
conviction. When, however, the Council by its deci 
sion puts an end to the matter, then at length his 
Catholic conscience tells him plainly what he must now 
think and what he must now do; for it is then that the 
Catholic bishop, whom hitherto unsolved difficulties 
have kept from participation in the public session and 
from the solemn voting, says : * Now it is undoubtedly 
certain that this doctrine is revealed by God, and is 
therefore a portion of the Catholic faith, and therefore 
I accept it on faith, and must now proclaim it to my 
clergy and people as a doctrine of the Catholic Church. 
The difficulties which hitherto made it hard for me to 
give my consent, and to the perfect solution of which 
I have not even yet attained, must be capable of a solu 
tion ; and so I shall honestly busy myself with all the 
powers of my soul to find their solution for myself and 
for those whose instruction God has confided to my 
care. Then those bishops who in the last General 
Congregation voted with the non placets, only because 
they really thought it was not a good thing, not neces 
sary, not for the benefit of souls in countries well 
fcnown to them, and who for this reason abstained 
tVom taking part in this decision, may, after the solemn 
decision, if they think it advisable, represent to the 

Infallibility of the Popes. 33 

faithful of their dioceses the position which they pre 
viously adopted towards the doctrine, in order that 
their conduct may not be misunderstood. But they 
must now themselves unhesitatingly accept the doc 
trine which has been decided, and make it known to 
their people in its true and proper bearings, without 
reserve, and in such manner that the injurious effects 
which they themselves apprehended may be as much 
as possible obviated and removed ; for it is not per 
mitted to the bishop, as the divinely-appointed teacher 
of the clergy and people, to be silent about or to with 
hold a doctrine of the Faith revealed by God, because 
he apprehends or thinks that some may take offence at 
it. Nay, rather it is his business so prudently to bring 
it about in the declaration of that doctrine, that its 
true sense and import may hereafter be clearly repre 
sented, all erroneous misrepresentations of it be ex 
cluded, the reasons for the decision of the doctrine 
brought out plainly, and all objections to it zealously 
met and answered. 

And this was what the German bishops really did 
think and do. In proof whereof I will venture to men 
tion the name of the Archbishop of Cologne, who thus 
speaks : * In respect of this doctrine, I, in common 
with many other bishops and laymen, although I have 
always given my assent to its truth, nevertheless held 
a different opinion from the majority of bishops at the 
Council, and made no concealment of my opinion that 
the definition was inopportune in our time, and I also 
differed in respect of certain particulars connected with 
the doctrine. Since, however, after a deep and thorough 
investigation and examination, the question has been 

34 The True and the False 

decided by the Ecumenical Council, in the firm convic 
tion that every Catholic is bound to submit uncondi 
tionally his own personal view of the matter to the 
decisions of such a Council the highest legitimate 
authority in the Church I have dismissed all previous 
doubts and anxieties on the subject, and I feel myself 
bound here publicly to declare that I expect the same 
submission from every Catholic and subject of this 
archdiocese, as the fulfilment of a simple duty of their 
religion. --Pastoral, September 10, 1870.* 

As to the way in which the bishops thought fit to 
make known to their subjects this obligation of their 
faith whether it should be done by a simple printed 
notice in the official gazette of the diocese, as at Vienna, 
Prague, Leitmeritz, and elsewhere, or by a special pas 
toral, as at Cologne, Saltsburg, Munich, Regensburg, 
&c., or by a notice from the altar-rails of the church, 
as at Linz is immaterial ; since any one of these noti 
fications shows sufficiently that each particular bishop 
looked upon this doctrine as a doctrine of the Catholic 
faith, and required that his subjects should do so like 
wise. Moreover, every one is aware that all doctrinal 
definitions of the Catholic Church demand a conscien 
tious acceptation on the part of every Catholic as soon 
as he comes to a certain knowledge of the doctrine, 
and this without any special publication in a particular 

3. Our opponent next insists on the great import 
ance of an exact and thorough knowledge of History, 
in order completely to sift the doctrine of the infalli 
ble teaching authority of the Pope, and to ascertain 

* See note at the end of this chapter. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 35 

what value History has set upon it. The necessity of 
such a knowledge we readily admit, without, however, 
admitting that it will at all avail the enemies of the 


doctrine. For it is perfectly well known to every one 
who is acquainted with the literary works, both old 
and new, which have reference to this subject, that the 
advocates of the doctrine of Papal Infallibility, as well 
as its adversaries, appeal to the history of the Church 
and to its sources. History experiences the same fate 
that has befallen Holy Scripture. The advocates, as 
well as the enemies, of every particular Catholic doc 
trine on which, in the course of ages, dogmatic defini 
tions have been pronounced, have always appealed to 
Holy Scripture. So it is with the appeal to history ; 
but with this great difference that we honour Holy 
Scripture as the divine source of our Catholic faith 
(though not the only source), whereas history, in so far 
as we consider it apart from that tradition which is one 
source of our faith, has only a human authority, and is 
amenable to the full force of the laws of sound criti 
cism. Accordingly, history will furnish those support 
ers of the doctrine of the Infallibility of the Pope who 
wish to go to its very foundation with extremely valu 
able and rich materials. Those things which the ad 
versaries of the doctrine adduce out of history, in order 
to assail it, will present us too with an excellent op 
portunity of placing in a right light what the doctrine 
really is, and of showing, by particular examples, in 
what cases it derives support from such instances, and 
in what cases not. These records of the past will not 
then be, as our adversaries taunt us, a very disagree 
able subject for us to contemplate ; say rather they 

36 The True and the False 

are the sources which enable us to maintain our 
point, and that their investigation is most desirable, 
since without these there can be no real history at all. 
And if there is anything to which the writer of these 
pages owes a grateful acknowledgment, it is to these 
very sources of his information being as exact as 
they are. 

4. Dr. Schulte now further declares that, though a 
Catholic born and bred, he has never believed in Papal 
Infallibility, and he asserts that, as to this decree of 
July iSth, 1870, he can find no authority for it either 
in Scripture, or in the Fathers, or in any other sound 
source of historical information, as it is taught in Caps, 
iii. and iv. of the Vatican Council. 

Such a declaration makes it clear enough what po 
sition he assumes, and a very deplorable position it is. 
He refuses to accept the definition de fide of an Ecu 
menical Council ; he cares nothing for the authority 
of the living teaching Church ; only for what he thinks 
he finds in Scripture, in the Fathers, and in other 
genuine ancient sources. This is the way to forsake 
the Catholic Church altogether^ Every one is to fol 
low his own guidance, his own private judgment ; one 
finds one thing, another finds another ; each calls out, 
* I have found out the truth ; come to me. This is the 
way all errors have arisen, and it is this un catholic po 
sition, which he has assumed, which is at the root of 
this particular perversion of his judgment, as is mani 
fest from the following words he makes use of: As it 
is not my bishop or my priest who will bring me to 
heaven by his prayers, if I myself believe not in Christ, 
and live not as a Christian ought to live ; so neither 

Infallibility of tJic Popes. 37 

can I, nor any one else who wishes to know what is 
right, intrust my salvation to the responsibility which 
a third person might be willing to assume for me. Of 
my own self God will, in the next world, require a 
reckoning of my life. To the doctrine of the Apostle 
(Rom. xiv. 12, 2 Cor. v. 10*) I hold fast, and will never 
shield myself under the responsibility of any one but 

When then Dr. Schulte says, * Neither Pope, nor 
bishop, nor parish priest, can bring me to heaven by 
his prayers, if I live not as a Christian and believe in 
Christ, no doubt he states perfectly correctly that no 
one goes to heaven by another s prayers, if he does 
not believe in Christ and live according to his faith. 
When, however, .he adds, Just as little can I, or any 
one who wishes to know what is right, trust my salva 
tion to the responsibility which a third person may be 
willing to assume/ this is a proposition with a double 
sense, one of which senses is true, and the other false. 
It is perfectly true, if it is a question of the transgres 
sion of a law which I may have had the misfortune to 
commit, which transgression a third person may, per 
haps, say he will take upon his own shoulders ; as if a 
person were to say, If you commit such and such a 
murder, such and such an adultery, such and such 
a theft, such and such an act of fraud, I will take upon 

* I give these passages that the reader may judge how far they help 
Dr. Schulte s cause : Rom. xiv. 12 Every one of us shall render an 
account to God for himself; 2 Cor. v. 10 For we must all be mam- 
Jested before the judgment seat of Christ, that every one may receive 
the proper things of the body according as he hath done, whether it be 
good or evil. 

38 The True and tJie False 

myself the responsibility of the deed. In such matters 
assuredly the responsibility which another person takes 
upon himself, will in no wise avail me before God. I: 1 
this sense, then, the proposition is true. But if any 
one wishes to extend the application of this proposi 
tion, so as to say that I must not accept a Catholic 
doctrine on faith when the teaching Church declares it 
to be of faith, because I myself do not find the doc 
trine in Scripture, the Fathers, or other genuine ancient 
sources of Church doctrine, then this proposition is 
used in a false sense, by the substitution of the act of 
the individual s subjective belief for the objective truth 
declared by the Church, which truth is based upon the 
infallible teaching office of the holy Catholic Church. 
What an amazing difference,, then, is there between 
these two propositions ! In the one case, a man offers 
to bear for another the consequences of an act of every 
day life, be it of belief or unbelief, be it of a good or bad 
action, and, in the other case, a Catholic Christian, re 
lying on the authority of the teaching Church, on 
which God has Himself taught him to rely, he that 
heareth you heareth Me, accepts a doctrine as a truth 
revealed by God, because the teaching Church, under 
the special guidance of the Holy Spirit, has declared it 
to be so. If a man is not to be required to believe 
such a declaration as this, then all difference between 
an infallibly teaching Catholic Church and Protestant 
ism in all its forms, with the unlimited right of private 
judgment, is at an end. Assuredly he says truly, 
God will some time call every one to a reckoning for 
his conduct during life/ Certainly He will call our 
once-Catholic opponent, and will say to him, * I gave 

Infallibility of the Popes. 39 

you the grace to be born and bred up in the Catho 
lic Church ; you both might have learnt and you 
ought to have learnt that there resides in the Catholic 


Church an infallible teaching authority, to which, in 
matters of faith, every Catholic is bound to submit. 
From the man who rebels against that authority and 
rejects her decision will I demand an account, and an 
account twofold and threefold more severe from 
him who, in his capacity of public teacher, misleads 
from the Faith the youth who have been intrusted 
to him, and causes them to rebel against the author 
ity of the Church, and who, for this reason, will have 
the guilt of the shipwreck of those souls on his con 

5. Having assumed, as I have described, so fear 
fully mistaken a position, our opponent proceeds to 
assert that he himself preserves and holds fast the 
faith of the Fathers and the teaching of the ancient 
Catholic Church in rejecting the decision of the Vatican 
Council on Papal Infallibility, (the July Constitution, 
as he is pleased to call it). Well then, the Vatican 
Council has solemnly spoken, and said that * holding 
fast to the tradition of the Christian faith, which it has 
received from the beginning, it declares this to be a 
doctrine of the Faith. If this faith is contained in the 
tradition of the Christian faith, which has existed from 
the beginning, then must it have been the faith of the 
Fathers and the doctrine of the ancient Catholic 
Church. So here we have assertion versus assertion. 
The Vatican Council declares the doctrine of the infal 
lible teaching office of the Roman Pope has been in 
the Church from the beginning, delivered down from 

40 The True and the False 

the most ancient times ; Dr. Schulte says that he, 
while, maintaining his own view of the question, he 
does not accept the doctrine, still holds fast to the 
faith of the Fathers and to the doctrine of the ancient 
Catholic Church. Whom is the world to believe ? 
Dr. Schulte, or the Pope and the Bishops ? Hardly 
will he have the confidence to answer, The world is to 
believe me, not the Pope and the Bishops. Yet, ac 
cording to the position he has assumed in his pamphlet, 
he cannot bring himself to answer, The world must 
believe not me, but the Pope and Bishops. Accord 
ingly, all that remains for him to say is, * Everybody is 
to search for himself the Holy Scriptures and the 
writings of the Fathers, and examine the ancient 
records, in order to find out the truth for himself. 

Out of compassion for the author I decline to stig 
matise with its proper name such a position as this 
which he has assumed ; his own conscience must, when 
he calmly weighs the matter over, tell him what a 
course he has entered on, and whither such principles 
must naturally lead him. How utterly unreal, how 
completely impossible in practice, such a suggestion is 
my readers will easily see, if they do but consider that 
they are thus, every one. of them; required to examine 
Holy Scripture, the Fathers, and the ancient records 
of the Church, in order to know what they have to be 
lieve respecting the infallible teaching office of the Ro 
man Pontiff; whether, having made such an investiga 
tion, they are compelled to accept this doctrine as a 
doctrine of the Catholic faith, and under what limita 
tions. In order, however, to prevent any one mis 
understanding my meaning, I think it right to remark, 

Infallibility of the Popes. 4 1 

that in contesting the position of Dr. Schulte, as re 
gards the duty of every one to examine the Scripture, 
the Fathers, and the ancient records for himself, I am 
far from dissuading an examination of them as a thing 
objectionable in itself. On the contrary, I highly 
value such an investigation, and I hold it to be a very 
right and proper thing to make it, when it is done in a 
right manner. If, however, this examination is praised 
and recommended in order to represent the solemn 
definition of the teaching Church as an error, then will 

a thing that is good in itself, instead of being a means 
of establishing and defending the truth, only serve as 
a battering-ram against that truth. This is a bad and 
objectionable proceeding. 

6. One other assertion of our opponent needs to be 
cleared up. It is this: he says, The Church is not 
founded that the Hierarchy may govern, and the laity 
obey; but the Lord hath founded His Church that 
every one may find in her the safe way to work out his 
own salvation. As this assertion here meets the eye, 
it presents to our view a truth viz. that the final cause 
of the foundation of the Church was not that the Hier 
archy might govern, and that the laity might obey, 
but that every one might find salvation in her. But if 
this assertion is made to represent as a fact that it is 
not the will of God, in the foundation of His Church, 
that the Pope and the Bishops should instruct and 
govern His Holy Church, and that the laity should lis 
ten to them in the Church, then is this a great mis 
representation of the truth. When, however, I say it is 
the will of God that the Pope and the Bishops should 
instruct and govern the Church, of course I mean to 

42 TJie True, and the False. 

say this in that ordinary sense in which the words have 
ever been understood, and the thing practised in the 
Church. To the Pope and to the Bishops, in the per 
son of. Peter and of the rest of the Apostles, was the 
whole truth of Revelation committed by Jesus Christ, 
the Founder of the holy Church. This truth is pre 
served by them, with a true and earnest watchfulness, 
as a precious treasure intrusted to them by God, and 
laid up in their keeping, to be imparted, either by 
themselves or by their assistants, the priests, to all 
who, by a true acceptance of this truth and by Bap 
tism, have either already found admission into her, 
or who. shall hereafter find admission. This is what 
the Pope and the Bishops, according to the will of 
God, teach. But it is also the will of God that they 
should govern the Church. This means that they 
should lead on their way to heaven the faithful com 
mitted to their pastoral care by means of the truth 
which they have received, as also by the means of 
grace which they have received to administer, and by 
virtue of that spiritual power with which, in the third 
place, they are endowed. This they know right well, 
and bear it always in mind : that in their ministrations 
they should always, and before all things, as their first 
duty, follow the example of their Divine Redeemer, 
the first and highest Pastor of souls, who hath said to 
them, I have given you an example, that you also 
should do as I have done unto you. Learn of Me, for 
I am meek and lowly of heart. * He who will be 
great among you, let him be your servant; and he 
who will be first, let him be your minister, like as the 
Son of Man is not come to be ministered unto, but to 

Infallibility of the Popes. 43 

minister and to give his life a ransom for many. This 
ministration for the good of souls is exercised in very 
different ways: sometimes with loving and sometimes 
with zealous words ; sometimes with instruction by 
word of mouth, and sometimes with words of written 
admonition, after the fashion of the Apostles, in the 
doctrine and love of Christ. 

It is greatly to be regretted certainly that our oppo 
nent, Dr. Schulte, has met with so many distressing 
proofs of disquieted minds, as he says he has in his work, 
A Glance into the State of the CJiurcJi in several Dioceses. 
However, I, being myself a Bishop, know the state of 
many Churches, and the mind of many Bishops there 
on, and I am compelled to express my opinion that 
Dr. Schulte met with either very one-sided informants 
or discontented grumblers in those dioceses he visited ; 
so that the prospect looked much more gloomy than it 
really was. That all regulations of this world, even 
when they rest on divine direction, in so far as they 
have to be carried out by men, are more or less subject 
to human imperfections, is too well known to need to 
be re-asserted ; nor can this now be denied. But we 
must not for this reason deny the divine supervision in 
the Church, set ourselves against it, or prejudge it, 
and that falsely too. God has willed it and ordered it 
that in His Church Pope and Bishops should teach and 
govern, and that the laity should obey. If a layman 
rebels against the Pope or against the Bishops, be 
cause, as he says, the good of the Church is of a higher 
order of good than the momentary pleasure of the 
Hierarchy, and that he has no fear if his conscience is 
not alarmed, then I am compelled to make the remark 

44 The True and the False 

that we Bishops too, and the Pope have a conscience, 
and that this doctrinal definition respecting the infal 
lible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff has been 
long and maturely weighed before God in prayer, and 
after long and earnest study has been declared with a 
quiet conscience ; and I also declare it to be my firm 
belief that those Bishops who, in supplement to the 
Council, declared their adhesion to the doctrine, and 
gave their reasons in excellent pastorals, acted simply 
according to their own consciences. Lastly, as regards 
the good of the Church, which Dr. Schulte professes 
he thinks imperilled by the momentary perversion of 
the Hierarchy, I ask, who can imagine that things 
are come to such a pass that in this nineteenth century 
the Church of God has come to be betrayed by the 
Pope and Bishops, and that our opponent, Dr. Schulte, 
should be the man chosen by God to take the Church 
under his protection? Are, then, the Pope and Bishops 
so forsaken by God that He should let them sink into 
so dangerous an error in doctrine ? Has the Lord 


forgotten His promises? Can He ever forget them, 
and give over His Church a prey to destruction ? 

Note to page 34. 

Quite in unison with the Archbishop of Cologne are the senti 
ments (as they have been credibly reported to us by the public press) 
of the Princo Primate of Hungary, John Simor, Archbishop of Gran, 
and his sentiments may be taken as expressing those of the rest of 
the Hungarian Bishops. We are there told that the Prince Primate 
never for a moment contemplated denying that the Council was 
ecumenical ; that He never was opposed to the doctrine itself "thai 
the Pope was Infallible by virtue of the promise given to the Foundei 
of the Church," but only to the opportuneness of so weighty a step, 
fraught with such important consequences, in the present deplorable 

Infallibility of the Popes. 45 

state of affairs. Besides, after that the Council, and, by the voice of 
the Council (as the certain and undisputed doctrine of the Church has 
ever held), the Holy Ghost Himself, has spoken, the Prince Primate 
was as little capable as any other faithful member of our Holy Church 
of entertaining a doubt about the validity and binding force ot the In 
fallibility Dogma. German-Hungarian Monthly Journal, December 

46 The True and the False 



7. THIS portion of Dr. Schulte s pamphlet contains a 
German translation! of the words of the definition of 
the Vatican Council now under consideration; it enu 
merates the particular propositions therein contained, 
and draws from them their logical and juridical conse 

I cannot refrain here from expressing my sense of 
the extraordinary unfairness of the writer in quoting 
the definition without the reasons which the Council 
itself gives in express words for making the definition. 
This context is absolutely necessary in order that we 
may rightly understand so important a matter. In 
order to supply this deficiency, I will present to my 
readers, in the vernacular, the entire section or chapter 
i On the Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman 
Pontiff, as given by -the Council. The whole section, 
or fourth chapter, of the first dogmatic definition on 
the Church of Christ runs as follows: 

Caput Quartum. 



That in the apostolical primacy which the Roman 

* Bear in mind the headings of the chapters are taken from Dr, 
Schulte s pamphlet. 

f By Dr. W. Molitor, Regcnsburg, 1870. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 47 

Pontiff", as successor of the prince of the Apostles, 
Peter, has over the whole Church, is comprehended 
also the supreme teaching authority, this holy See has 
always firmly held, and this the constant practice of 
the Church confirms, and this the Ecumenical Councils 
have themselves declared, and above all, that Council 
in which the East met the West for the union of faith 
and charity. For the Fathers of the Fourth Council 
of Constantinople, treading in the footsteps of their 
forefathers, made the following solemn confession : 
" The first condition of salvation is to keep the rule of 
sound faith. And as the declaration uttered by our 
Lord Jesus Christ can never fail,* when He says, 
* Thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build My 
Church/ so have the words there said actually come 
to pass, forasmuch as in the apostolical chair the 
Catholic faith has ever remained inviolate and its holy 
doctrine been celebrated. Desiring to be in no wise 
separated from its faith and doctrine, we hope to be 
made worthy to be in that one communion which the 
Apostolic See declares, wherein resides the perfect 
and true wholeness of the Christian religion. "f With 
the acquiescence of the Second Council of Lyons the 
Greeks made this confession : " That the holy Roman 
Church possesses the highest and the full primacy and 
principality over the whole Catholic Church, which it 

: " Praetermitti/ used with jus, in the sense of being brought to 
naught. See Facciolati in verbo. TRANSLATOR. 

f From u. formula of Pope Hormisdas, as it was proposed by 
Adrian II. to the Eighth Ecumenical Council, viz. the Fourth 
Council of Constantinople, and" wa&^signed by the Fathers there 

assembled. X*> f^t A Pj! V 

f *\ * 



48 The True and tJie False 

truly and humbly acknowledges it has received from 
our Lord Himself in the person of St. Peter, the 
prince and chief of the Apostles, together with the 
fulness of power; and as this Church is before al! 
other Churches bound to defend the truth of the 
faith, so ought all questions of faith which may at any 
time arise to be decided according to her judgment." 
The Council of Florence finally defined : " That the 
Roman Pontiff, the true Vicar of Christ, is the head 
of the whole Church and the Father and Doctor of all 
Christians, and that to him, in St. Peter, was commit 
ted by our Lord Jesus Christ the full power to feed 
the universal Church, to rule, and to guide it." 

In order to fulfil this pastoral office, our Predecess 
ors have, time after time, directed their unwearied 
labours that the wholesome doctrine of Christ might 
be spread abroad among all people of the earth, and 
with .like care have they watched that, wherever the 
true doctrine has been received, there it should be pre 
served pure and undefiled. Therefore have the Bi 
shops of the whole world, sometimes individually, and 
sometimes assembled in solemn synods, acting accord 
ing to the long-received custom of the Church, and 
according to the pattern of the ancient rules, brought 
before this apostolic chair those difficulties which were 
ever arising in matters of faith, in order that the rents 
in faith might there be mended, where alone the faith 
could never fail.* The .Roman Pontiffs, however, 
have, as times and circumstances warranted, some 
times by summoning Ecumenical Councils or by asking 
the opinion of the Church throughout the world, 

* St. Bernard, Epis. 190. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 49 

sometimes by particular synods, sometimes by the 
use of other means which Divine Providence put in 
their way, defined that those things should be held 
irm which they had thus learnt, under God s assist- 
mce, to be in accordance with Holy Scripture and 
apostolical traditions. For the Holy Spirit was not 
promised to the successors of St. Peter, that by His 
revelation they might make known a new doctrine, 
but that by His assistance they might holily preserve 
and faithfully expound the revelation delivered to the 
Apostles, or, in other words, the " deposit of the 
faith " (depositum fidei}. This is that apostolical doc 
trine which all the venerable Fathers of the Church 
have embraced, and all the orthodox holy Doctors 
have venerated and followed ; for they had the most 
perfect conviction that this holy See of Peter always 
remains free from all error, according to the divine 
promise of our Lord and Saviour, which He made to 
the "prince of His disciples: "I have prayed for thee, 
that thy faith fail not ; and thou, in thy turn one day,* 
strengthen thy brethren." 

This gracious gift of the truth and of indefectible 
faith has been accordingly given by God to Peter and 
his successors in this See, that they might discharge 
their high office to the salvation of all ; that so the 
universal flock of Christ, turned from the poisonous 
allurements of error, might be nourished by the pas 
ture of heavenly doctrine ; so that, all occasion of 
schism having been removed, the whole Church might 
be preserved in unity, and, resting on its own solid 
basis, might stand fast against the gates of hell. 

* See the author s Preface, concluding paragraph. 

50 The True and the False 

1 But as at this present time, when the wholesome 
efficacy of the apostolic office is most pressingly 
needed, there are found not a few who derogate from 
its dignity, We esteem it quite necessary solemnly to 
assert the prerogative which the Only-begotten Son of 
God has graciously declared to be bound up with the 
highest pastoral authority.* 

Whilst, then, We remain firm to the tradition of 
the Christian faith, which has come down to us from 
the beginning, We teach, in accordance with this holy 
Council, to the glory of God our Saviour, to the ex 
altation of the Catholic religion, and for the benefit of 
all Christian people, and declare it to be a doctrine re 
vealed by God, that the Roman Pontiff, when he 
speaks from his chair of teaching (ex cathedrd) that 
is to say, when he, in the exercise of his office as pas 
tor and doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his 
supreme apostolic power, defines a doctrine on faith 
or morals as to be held by the universal Church, by 
virtue of the divine assistance promised to him in St. 
Peter possesses that Infallibility with which the 
Divine Redeemer willed His Church to be furnished in 
the definition of a doctrine respecting faith or morals; 
and that therefore such definitions of the Roman Pon 
tiff are of themselves, and not merely when they have 
received the consent of the Church, unalterable. 
Should, then, any one which God forbid ! venture 
to contest this definition of Ours, let him be Ana 

* AH this, from the beginning of this chapter up to this point, Dr. 
Schulte has omitted, and has only admitted into his article the pas 
sage commencing Whilst, then. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 51 

8. It can hardly escape the observation of any one 
who peruses this fourth chapter of the Council tho 
roughly and carefully, that the reasons given for the 
definition and the historical account of the doc 
trine are of immense importance for a right un 
derstanding of the matter. It was, then, very 
unfair of Dr. Schulte, to say the least, to ex 
tract from the chapter on Infallibility the bare 
words of the definition, and by so doing to leave the 
readers of his pamphlet in entire ignorance of all that 
important matter which, with the best intentions, the 
Council itself had given as the reasons for the defini 
tion, and, in order to forestall misunderstandings, had 
placed in close connection with the definition itself. 

I have, therefore, thought it especially necessary to 
give my readers the w r ords at full length which the 
Vatican Council made use of in declaring its mind on 
the infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff; and 
I beg my readers to pay particular attention to this 
context of the definition as regards the present contro 

The very title of the chapter is remarkable. It 
runs (in order to designate precisely the subject which 
is under consideration), On the Infallible Teaching 
Office of the Roman Pontiff. This expression, on the 
Infallible teaching office/ was chosen purposely, in 
stead of the title * On the Infallibility, in order to fore 
stall the erroneous deductions which might be drawn 
from the general term Infallibility by those who are 
disposed to dispute the doctrine on this very ground 
viz. because it was so general. Such persons would be 
sure to misrepresent the doctrine to others, and mis- 

52 The True and the False 

lead them in their inquiries. Accordingly, the Council 
carefully and exactly declared, by the very title, in 
what respect the term infallible is used of the Ro 
man Pontiff. 

The contents of the chapter On the Infallible 
teaching office of the Roman Pontiff may be con 
cisely viewed and readily stated in its principal fea 
tures as follows : 

It is the ancient consistent doctrine of the Church, 
says the Pope, that to the Roman Pontiff is given by 
God the supreme power in the Church, in order always 
to preserve its unity. But in this supreme power is 
contained the supreme teaching power, as the Church 
has always acknowledged in General Councils of an 
cient times, and especially in the Fourth Council of 
Constantinople (A. D. 869), in the Second Council of 
Lyons (A.D. 1274), and in the Council of Florence (A.D. 
1439). He also shows how the Popes acted when 
difficult questions relating to faith were, according to 
ancient custom and prescription, laid before the Apos 
tolical See for decision by the Bishops, viz. either, by 
assembling the Bishops in Ecumenical Council or by 
inquiring into and obtaining the knowledge in some 
other way of what the general feeling of the universal 
Church was upon such and such a point ; or by sum 
moning particular synods; and, lastly, by using all 
such means as Divine Providence put in their power. 
And with this assistance the Popes decided that doc 
trine to be revealed by God, and accordingly to be 
held by all as de fide, which they, with God s assist 
ance, recognised as conformable to Holy Scripture and 
the apostolical traditions ; always themselves holily pre- 

Infallibility of the Popes. 53 

serving and truly interpreting, by the same divine as 
sistance, the deposit um fidei preserved in the Church. 
This apostolical teaching of the Popes, he says, the ven 
erable Fathers and all orthodox teachers in the Church 
have, from of old up to the present time, accepted 
with a full and perfect conviction that the See of bless 
ed Peter, by virtue of the Divine Providence of our 
Lord and Saviour, has been constantly kept from all 
error; for so Jesus Christ spoke to Peter: 1 have 
prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not ; and do thou, 
in thy turn one day, strengthen thy brethren (Luc. 
cap. xxii. v. 32). The reason is also added why God gave 
this great grace to St. Peter and his successors in the 
office of supreme teacher viz. that they might exer 
cise this office for the spiritual benefit of all the faith 
ful, that thereby the Church, trusted by God to their 
supreme pastoral care, might through those who exer 
cise this office of supreme teacher be maintained with 
out fear of error in the divine truth, and thus the 
whole Church be preserved in unity. Therefore, in 
accordance with that tradition which has ever existed 
in the Church from the beginning of the Christian re 
ligion, and which has always been maintained invio 
late, it is declared by the Vatican Council, to the glory 
of God and for the salvation of Christian people, to be 
a constituent part of the Catholic faith revealed by 
God, * that the Roman Pontiff, when he speaks from 
his chair of teaching, (or ex cathedr&)~\h&\. is to say, 
when he, in the exercise of his office as pastor and 
doctor of all Christians, by virtue of his supreme apos 
tolic authority, defines a doctrine which concerns faith 
or morals to be held de fide by the whole Church r 

J * 

54 The True and the False 

does, by reason of the divine assistance promised to 
him in the person of St. Peter, possess that Infallibility 
with which the Divine Redeemer willed His Church to 
be provided in the decision of matters respecting faith 
or morals ; and that accordingly all such definitions of 
the Roman Pontiff are of themselves, and not then only 
when they have received the consent of the Church, 

Having thus supplied, in the little review which 
we have made, the gap left by Dr. Schulte, by giving 
the important introduction to the definition of the 
Vatican Council on the Infallible teaching office of the 
Roman Pontiff, and shown also the principal motives 
by which this Council was actuated, we are confident 
that it will be clear to all unprejudiced persons that 
* the decisive passage (as Dr. Schulte calls it, and 
which alone he quotes in his pamphlet, from the 
end of the chapter) will produce a very different im 
pression, if considered in connection with the reasons 
which the Council itself assigns for the definition, and 
in connection also with the historical explanation, 
from that which it would produce, if viewed wrenched 
out of its context, and isolated. They will now be 
able to see how this supreme and infallible office has 
hitherto been exercised by the Popes, and from this 
they will judge how it ivill be exercised in future. 
And I must say it is a most disingenuous com 
mencement of Dr. Schulte in his pamphlet, that he 
has torn off from the words of the Definition the 
Council s reasons for it, and its historical explanation 
in this chapter of the Vatican Council On the In 
fallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff. 

Infallibility of Ike Popes. 55 

9. I admit, however, the * decisive passage itself 
does require some remarks to enable persons thereby 
thoroughly to understand it ; for it is with this passage 
that Dr. Schulte commences that erroneous exposition 
of the Vatican definition, which I have undertaken to 
examine and refute ; it becomes then my duty to open 
out and disclose the sources of his erroneous view and 
his misrepresentations ; and this I can best do by ex 
plaining at once what is the right sense of the defini 
tion, and so letting every one see when and where the 
author of the pamphlet under examination has devi 
ated from the path of truth. 

The definition asserts that the Roman Pontiff, by 
virtue of the divine assistance, possesses the Infalli 
bility promised to the Church in his doctrinal teaching 
only when he speaks ex cathedrd. This is the ex 
pression used for centuries, and for that very reason 
preserved in speaking of definitions of the faith. 

But as this expression ex catJiedrd or, Anglice, * to 
speak from the chair of teaching is not generally 
intelligible, as it is a technical expression drawn from 
theological science, the Council itself added a short 
explanation of it. It says it means, * When he (i.e. 
the Pope), in the exercise of his teaching office as 
pastor and instructor (doctor] of all the faithful, by 
virtue of his highest apostolical power, defines, as to 
be held by the whole Church, doctrine that regards 
faith or morals. * 

r The Latin of these last words is as follows ; Doctrinam de fide 
vel moribus definit ; i.e. issues his final decision that a certain doc 
trine is to be regarded as an essential part of the Catholic faith or of 
Cutholic morality, and to be maintained as such by the universal 

56 The True and the False 

(i) By this expression, then, ex catJiedrd, the gift 
of God s divine grace conveying Infallibility in faith 
and morals to the Roman Pontiff, the visible head of 
the Catholic Church, and who in the person of St. 
Peter has received from our Lord Jesus Christ the full 
power to feed the universal Church, to direct and to 
guide it, is closely restricted to the exercise of his office 
as /$&/<?/* and Doctor of all Christians. 

The Pope, as visible head of the whole Church, is : 

I. The Supreme Teacher of truth revealed by God. 

II. The Supreme Priest. 

III. The Supreme Legislator in ecclesiastical mat 

IV. The Supreme Judge in ecclesiastical causes. 
He has, however, the gift of Infallibility, according 

to the manifest sense of the words of the definition, 
only as supreme teacher of truths necessary for salvation 
revealed by God, not as supreme priest, not as supreme 
legislator in matters of discipline, not as supreme 
judge in ecclesiastical questions, not in respect of any 
other questions over which his highest governing power 
in the Church may otherwise extend.* And when I 

* In this sense F. Perrone writes ( Prcelect. Theolog. vol. viii. De 
Locis Theologicis, pars i. ii. cap. iv. n. 726, Lovanii, 1843, p. 497) : 
Quapropter neque facta personalia, neque praecepta, neque rescripta, 
neque opiniones, quas iclentldem promunt Roman! Pontifices, neque 
decreta disciplinae, neque omissiones definitionis, aliaque id genus 
plurima in censu veniunt decretorum, de quibus agimus. Quan- 
quam enim haec omnia pro summa auctoritate, ex qua dimanant, 
mngno semper in pretio habenda sint, ac humili mentis obsequio ac 
veneratione sint excipienda, nihilo tamen minus non constituunt " de- 
finitionem ex cathedra," de qua loquimur et in qua sola adstruimus 
Pontificiam infallibilitatem. I quote Perrone as my guarantee, in 
asmuch as he at least cannot be suspected of wishing to derogate 

Infallibility of the Popes. 57 

here decline to place in the range of subjects for the 
exercise of Infallibility ecclesiastical matters, I mean to 
exclude all those matters which commonly form the 
subject of ecclesiastical processes, as, for instance, 
marriage questions, benefice questions, patronage 
questions, church-building questions, &c. ; questions 
of faith of course the Pope decides as Supreme 

(2) As doctrinal definitions comprehend doctrines 
respecting the faith as well as doctrines respecting 
morals, it will often happen in the nature of things 
that definitions on the latter of these two subjects, 
viz. morals, will be issued to the universal Church in 
the form of a command or prohibition from the Pope 
(Prccepta moruin). 

(3) Here, in order that we may better understand 
the subject, it will be well to compare what we are 
now saying with what is said in the third chapter of 
the Vatican definition de fide, where it is expressly 
taught that the Pope possesses the highest 
power of jurisdiction over the whole Church, * not 
only in matters of faith and morals, but also in mat 
ters of the discipline and government of the Church 

from the Pope s authority. Ballerini expresses himself to the same 
effect (De vi ac Ratione Ptimatih Rom, Pontif. cap. xiv. vi. Vercnae, 
1766, p. 287-8): Solas itaque fidei definitiones id (inerrantise privi- 
legium) respicit a Summis Pontificibus Ecclesije propositas contra 
insurgentesdissentiones et errores in materia fidei : non autem opi- 
niones,quibus etsi aliquid statuant, nihil tamen decernunt credendum 
ex Catholica fide, nihilque damnant tanquam alienum ab eadem ; non 
simplicia praecepta, quae ad fidei definitionem referri non possint ; 
nonjudiciade personis tantum, non decreta di^ciplinae, quse ad fidem 
non pertinent, non tandem omissiones definitionum fidei, &c. 

58 The True and the False 

extended over the whole orbis terrarum! * Non solum 
in rebus, quae ad fidem et mores, sed etiam in iis, quse 
ad disciplinam et regimen Ecclesiae per totum orbem 
diffusae pertinent/ Thus there are here distinguished 
four classes of matters as belonging to the province of 
things ecclesiastical, which fall under the supreme 
power of the Pope : 

I. Matters of faith. 

II. Matters of morals. 

III. Matters of discipline. 

IV. Matters of government. 

In all these matters the faithful owe a true obedience 
to the Pope. 

(4) Then in the fourth chapter, entitled On the 
Infallible Teaching Office of the Roman Pope, the 
Council treats exclusively of the teaching power of 
the Pope matters, that is, of the first and second 
class, faith and morals, not matters of the third and 
fourth class, i.e. discipline and government. Accord 
ingly, it is only as regards definitions of the Pope 
upon faith and morals, that the Council defines, as a 
proposition revealed by God, that they possess infalli 
ble certainty by virtue of the unerring divine assis 
tance promised to the Pope in St. Peter, i.e. as the 
successor of St. Peter. Cardinal Bellarmine had al 
ready made this distinction, speaking of the doctrine 
on morals as follows (De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. cap. v.) : 
Non potest errare summus Pontifex in prseceptis mo- 
rum, quae toti ecclesiae praescribuntur, et quae in rebus 
necessariis ad salutem, vel in iis quae per sebona et 
mala sunt, versantur. What he then says further in 
this place refers to discipline : Non est erroneum di- 

Infallibility of the Popes. 59 

cere Pontificem in aliis legibus posse errare, nimirum 
superfluam legem condendo vel minus discretam, &c. 
Ut autem jubeat (sc. Pontifex) aliquid quod non est 
bonum neque malum ex se, neque contra salutem, sed 
tamen est inutile, vel sub poena nimis gravi illud prae- 
cipiat, non est absurclum dicere posse fieri, &c. And 
other theologians follow Bellarmine on this point. 

(5) This Infallibility of the Pope in the exercise of 
his office as Pastor and Doctor of all Christians is, how 
ever, still more closely defined as * that Infallibility 
with which the Divine Redeemer willed that His 
Church should be provided in the definition of a doc 
trine relating to faith or morals. Before, then, we 
proceed to answer the question, how far the Papal 
Infallibility extends over matters which concern faith 
or morals, the question arises how far the Infallibility 
of the Church extends over such matters ? Without 
entering into the investigation of this very wide ques 
tion, on which much precise information is afforded in 
all our great theological works, I content myself with 
selecting the following proposition, universally acknow 
ledged in theology viz. That even jn dogmatic 
Decrees, Bulls, &c. &c., not all which therein occurs in 
any one place, not that w r hich occurs or is mentioned 
incidentally, not a preface, nor what is laid down as 
the basis of the decree, is to be looked upon as itself* 

* If here, as elsewhere, I make use of the term dogmatic definition 
on a matter of faith in the sense of the Latin words dogmatica defir 
nitio, this is only for the sake of brevity. I mean by the words all the 
doctrina de fide et moribus, following Ballerini (De vi ac Rations 
Piimatits Roman. Pontif. cap. xv. g v. Veronae, 1766, p. 312), who thus 
explains the expression : Fidei dogma, in quo continetur et morum 
naturalis ac divini juris doctrina. 

60 The Triie and the False 

a dogmatic definition, and so as matter of Infalli 
bility. * 

(6) Lastly, the Council adds that the definitions of 
the Pope, in which, by virtue of his office as Pastor 
and Doctor, he lays down a certain doctrine on faith 
or morals as firmly to be held de fide by all Christians, 
are/rr se irreversible, i.e. of their own nature, and not 
only irreversible when they receive the subsequent as 
sent of the Church. It is not meant by this that the 
Pope ever decides anything contrary to the tradition 
of the Church, or that he would stand alone in oppo 
sition to all the other Bishops, but only that the Infal 
libility of his definition is not dependent on the 
acceptance of the Church, and rests on the special 
divine assistance promised and vouchsafed to him in 
the person of St. Peter for the exercise of his supreme 
teaching office. t Since, then, it is here expressly said 
that those definitions on which the Infallibility of the 
Pope exercises itself are per se unalterable, it follows, 
as a matter of course, that all those laws which are is 
sued from time to time by the Pope in matters of dis 
cipline, and which are alterable, are, by the very reason 
that they are alterable, not included in the de fide 
definition of the Vatican Council. 

10. Having now by these remarks on the de fide 
definitions of the Vatican Council cleared our view of 
their meaning and import, we find ourselves in a con- 

* Qua; in conciliorum vel Pontificum decretis vel explicandi 
gratia inducunlur, vel ut objection! respondeatur, vel etiam obiter et 
in transcursu prseter institutum pracipuum, de quo erat potissimum 
controversia, ea non pertinent ad fidem, hoc est, non sunt Catholicae 
fidei judicia. Melch. Cnnus, De foci s Theologicis, lib. v. cap. v. 

f See note A, end of this chapter. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 61 

dition to face the conclusions Dr. Schulte draws from 

The first set of these conclusions may be unhesita 
tingly admitted viz. that it is the duty of every Ca 
tholic to believe the dogma published on the iSth of 
July, 1870; that the aim of this solemn proclamation 
of the doctrine is not merely theoretical but practical 
-viz. that the Roman Pontiff by these ex -cathedra 
definitions may make known infallibly those right and 
true principles of living by which a man must frame his 
life if he wishes to be happy in the next world ; that by 
this definition not the present Pope alone is declared 
infallible, but also that each one of his predecessors has 
been infallible, under those conditions which have been 
already stated ; that such an infallible definition is not 
conditional on the use of some one or other definite 
formula ; that such a definition is per se unalterable, 
and that its reception by the Church adds nothing to 
its binding power. 

11. Then follows a very important conclusion, com 
mencing with a true proposition, but making, as it is 
manipulated by Dr. Schulte, a very serious divergence 
from the truth. Dr. Schulte says : 4 It is inconceivable 
that a proposition should be solemnly published as re 
vealed by God, without its also of necessity influencing 
the faith and life of a Christian. Again : * Every man 
must be able to satisfy himself by objective proofs 
whether or no such a proposition is really proposed to 
him. Again : There must be certain objective prac 
tical marks whereby every rational being can recognise 
an utterance ex cathedra Again ; Those objective 
proofs must have been always the same, and uninter- 

62 The True and the False 

ruptedly. Again : * There is an utterance ex catJicdrd 
when the Roman Pontiff utters definitions upon faith 
and morals which he requires to be looked upon as the 
teaching of the Church. This is ascertained, he says, 
4 sometimes directly from the very words used, some 
times it is gathered from attendant circumstances, 
sometimes it is evident from the very decision itself, 
i. e. from its subject-matter. In order, then, to 
marshal forth these objective practical marks, as 
he calls them, by which a Papal ex cathcdrd utterance 
may be recognised by any one, he directs his readers 
attention to the objcctum, i. e. subject-matter of the in 
fallible teaching office, that is, faith and morals. He 
then, in the same terms as we do, admits what belongs 
to faith ; but as regards the other subject, morals, he 
culls from some book of Moral Theology the titles of 
all the treatises in order to show in detail what belongs 
to the moral duty of a Christian. Having done this, 
he proceeds to draw this conclusion : Morals compre 
hend the whole range of the duties in the life of each 
individual Christian as such. 

This then, being the conclusion drawn by Dr. 
Schulte, requires of us an exact and careful examina 
tion, since in it truth and falsehood are mixed up 
together in a most dangerous manner, and that which 
is false serves the writer as a foundation for further 
Misleading developments of his subject. 

It is true to say that every truth revealed by God 
has an influence upon the faith and life of a Christian,) 
and must therefore be capable of being recognised by 
him in a sure and safe way ; and it is true also to say 
that this character must belong to definitions of the 

Infallibility of the Popes. 63 

Pope ex cathcdrd ; and when he asserts that such de 
finitions must be recognisable as such by objective 
practical marks, this also is, in a certain sense, true. 
But when he draws his two conclusions first, there is 
an utterance ex cathcdrd whenever the Roman Pontiff 
utters definitions on faith or morals, and requires that 
they should be regarded as the teaching of the Church ; 
and secondly, this is made known sometimes directly 
by the words used, sometimes by attendant circum 
stances, and sometimes by the very definition itself- 

then of these two statements of his, the first is true, 


and the second is false, and the source of many errors. 

For it is in this second proposition that Dr. Schulte 
has set those objective practical marks, as he calls 
them, whereby a Papal definition has to be recognised 
as an ex cathedra utterance. He gives three such ob 
jective marks, of which sometimes the first, sometimes 
the second, sometimes the third, will tell us the will of 
the Pope as to what we should regard as the teaching 
of the Church ; that is, it is sometimes the words used 
by the Pope, sometimes the circumstances, sometimes 
the very definition itself; that is, the subject-matter or 
objectum of the definition, his meaning being, when the 
definition, refers to faith or morals in the widest sense 
of the words. 

Here, then, it is, in these so-called objective marks, 
whereby Papal ex cathedra utterances are supposed to 
be recognisable, that the dangerous error commences, 
error which our opponent proceeds to develop further 
throughout the whole course of his pamphlet. 

It will hardly surprise any one who has perused Dr. 
Schulte s explanatory Preface to his work to be told 

64 The Truz and the False 

that Dr. Schulte s very starting-point is unsound and 
misleading. He assumes, he says, that each individual 
Catholic Christian must be able, without the interven 
tion of bishop or priest i. t\ without having recourse 
to any teaching authority in the Church to recognise 
at once what is an ex cathedra utterance of the Pope ; 
and this * because each one has to work out his own 

Were Dr. Schulte to say that his meaning in these 
words is (even if he has not said so expressly) that 
every Catholic can by the assistance of the Church s 
teaching office (i. e. through her bishops and priests) 
learn what is a Papal utterance ex cathedra, and there 
fore infallible, even in the face of conflicting difficulties, 
then indeed he would explain and rectify his position ; 
but were he to admit this, then indeed he would cer 
tainly arrive at a different result from that at which he 
has actually arrived. 

For the bishops and the priests are quite aware that 
when there is no authentic explanation of a Papal ex 
cathedrd utterance, the Theological Faculty, which has 
been for centuries engaged upon this question, has to 
be heard upon the marks of a real utterance ; and that 
in reality the short dc fide definition in the Vatican 
Council in its few words does but contain what the 
science of Theology has been this long time investigat 
ing at great length, with the full knowledge and admis 
sion of the difficult questions arising out of the history 
of ancient times. But we shall look in vain, as Dr. 
Schulte from his own experience admits, if we wish to 
find from History or Theology that such Papal utter 
ances are to be recognised, sometimes from the words 

Infallibility of the Popes. 65 

used, sometimes from the circumstances, and some 
times from the definition itself, as though each one of 
these marks was of itself sufficient to establish the fact. 

On our part, we find that it is the view of Catholic 
theologians that there are two marks of an ex cathedra 
utterance, and, moreover, that these two marks must 
both be found together viz. that (i) the objcctuiu or 
subject-matter of the decision must be doctrine of faith 
or morals ; and (2) the Pope must express his intention, 
by virtue of his supreme teaching power, to declare 
this particular doctrine on faith and morals to be a 
component part of the truth necessary to salvation 
revealed by God, and as such to be held by the whole 
Catholic Church, he must publish it, and so give a 
formal definition .in the matter (definirc). These two 
marks must be found together. Any mere circum 
stances do not suffice to enable a person to recognise 
what a Pope says as an utterance ex catliedrd, or, in 
other words, as a de fide definition. It is only when 
the two other marks just mentioned are acknowledged 
to be present that the circumstances of the case serve 
to support and strengthen the proof of the Pope s 
intention ; and this intention will be made known by 
his own words. 

Should, however, these marks not give us a cer 
tainty absolutely free from all doubt as to whether, in 
a certain case, there is a Papal utterance ex catJiedrd, 
then will the subordinate teaching authority of the 
Church have recourse to the highest Authority himself, 
to ask him what his intention was in such an utter 
ance,* or to ask whether a formal Papal utterance on 

* Such an appeal to the Pope is not, then, so absurd as Dr. 

66 The True and the False 

such and such a matter is to be looked upon as ex 

Here it must be evident to every one that from this 
point Dr. Schulte s way of viewing his subject and my 
own must part company in their further development, 
viz. as to what is and is not an infallible doctrine 
uttered by the Pope. 

He lays down three notes, of which three any one 
alone is enough to make known a Papal utterance as 
infallible, and therefore unalterable, as being ex 

/, on the contrary, having regard to the words and 
the import of the definition of the Vatican Council, 
and also bearing in mind previous scientific expositions 
of theologians on the subject, lay dow.n two such notes, 
both of which, however, must always be found together; 
whilst to the third note I attribute only an auxiliary 

As was to be expected, Dr. Schulte, in consequence, 
naturally finds a great number of Papal ex cathedrd 
utterances; I, in accordance with the Theological 
Faculty, find only a few. 

Schulte says ; on the contrary, where there is a supreme authority, it 
is quite intelligible and reasonable on the part of the Pope s subordi 
nates in matters on which a doubt might arise of the applicability of the 
Pope s intention to a particular case, although in the first instance the 
intention was clearly expressed. 

(Of course Bishop Fessler is here understood as meaning that 
this fresh explanation of the definition must be provided with all the 
marks which are necessary to prove the presence of a real definition ; 
just as in a will any alteration or explanation forming part of a will, 
must be attested by the same witnesses and with the same formalities 
as were required for the original document. TRANSLATOR.) 

< *JAA) 

^"\ ^^ 

Infallibility of the Popes. 67 

12. Having made his own exposition of notes of a 
definition, Dr. Schulte proceeds to assert that only 
the Pope himself can define the subject-matter, the 
comprehensiveness, and the limits of an utterance 
ex catJiedrd. This assertion is so far true, that it is 
certain that no human authority can prescribe any 
thing to the Pope in this matter. If, however, it is 
meant that the Pope, according to his own will and 
fancy, can at all events extend his infallible definition 
even to matters relating to the Jus publicum, to which 
the divine revelation does not extend, then he has laid 
the case before us quite erroneously. The Pope, in his 
doctrinal utterances, only speaks what he finds, under 
the special divine assistance, to be already part of the 
truth revealed by God necessary for salvation, which he 
has given in trust to the Catholic Church (i.e., in the 
divine dcpositum fidei). The same assistance of God 
which securely preserves the Pope from error preserves 
him with equal security from declaring that to be 
revealed by God, and intrusted to the keeping of the 
Catholic Church as a matter of truth or morals, which 
God has not revealed and has not deposited in His 

Supposing then, as Dr. Schulte says, * the infallible 
teaching office of the Church can even extend to all 
subjects and departments of man s life which have any 
bearing upon his moral conduct/ yet assuredly no infal 
lible doctrine will ever be pronounced which is not 
part of the truth revealed by God. Were the contrary 
of this possible, then would God have forsaken His 

See note B of the editor of the French translation at the end of 
this chapter. 

68 The True and the False 

Church, which is impossible, since we have His pro 
mise that He will never forsake her unto the end of 
the world ; and to this promise we both are and must 
continue faithful if we desire to be Catholics and to 
remain so. 

13. Dr. Schulte now passes on to the special prac 
tical matter of his pamphlet, and says : * In order, then, 
to proceed to investigate with certainty what is the 
doctrine of the Church in respect to the relations be 
tween the spiritual and temporal power, we must have 
recourse to the utterances of the Pope. What these 
utterances have declared as really proceeding from him, 
that is the truth, and that must be believed by every 
Catholic, and must be the rule of his conduct. 

Hereupon Dr. Schulte proceeds to represent in the 
following manner what the doctrine of the Church is in 
respect of the relations of the spiritual to the temporal 
power, which the Catholic Christian must believe and 
follow out, if the infallible teaching office of the Pope 
is a matter of faith. * Well, he may do so. But it 
must be our business to insist upon this viz. that in 
his representation he shall only represent that to be a 
matter of faith which is really and truly a definition of 
the Pope on faith and morals. If he does not do this 
-if he represents Papal rescripts which belong to the 
province of reversible legislation, or are mere acts of 
government, as definitions of Popes upon faith and 

* In the Introduction, p. 18 of his Pamphlet, he thus expresses 
his own intention : I, in the first instance, issue this pamphlet that 
governments and persons governed may be thoroughly acquainted 
with what a Catholic who admits the Infallibility of the Pope is bound 
to believe as matter of conscience. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 69 

morals, or if from the records of real dogmatic defini 
tions of Popes he extracts mere incidental remarks, 
obiter dicta, and alleges these to be ex catJicdrd then 
assuredly he is leading his readers into error ; he is 
disturbing their consciences without reason ; he is 
arousing the suspicions of governments unnecessarily, 
and setting them against that Catholic doctrine which 
has been declared by the Vatican Council; and he is 
consciously or unconsciously (God only knows which) 
creating great prejudice against the Catholic Church. 

Dr. Schulte is unfortunate with his proofs from the 
very commencement. For instance, in order to prove 
that what the Popes have declared to be a doctrine 
of the Church is true, and to be believed by all Catho 
lics, and followed by them in -practice/ * he, without 

* I said designedly above, p. 57, only a real and true definition 
of the Pope on faith and morals can be under consideration, because 
the expression made use of by Dr. Schulte, p. 27 of his Pamphlet, is 
ambiguous. He says : What the Popes have declared to be such 
(viz. a dogma of the Church), that is true, and must be believed by 
Catholics, and accordingly followed by them in practice. This may 
be true and may be false. For not all that the Popes have declared to 
be a doctrine of the Church is for that reason alone (because the 
Popes have said so) true, and to be believed by Catholics, and so fol 
lowed by them in practice ; but only that which Popes have declared 
in an ex cathedra utterance to be a dogma of faith or morals to be 
believed by the whole Church. See Ballerini, 1. c. p. 36, who speaks 
very expressly on this point : " Multae sententiae, quae in Pontificum 
sive epistolis, sive concionibus, sive aliis quibuslibet eorum operibus 
inspersae, etiam si veritatem aut aliquod dogma contineant, et veris- 
simse sint, non tamen fidei definitiones dici qucunt, sicuti similes 
sentential in aliis Patribus inventae, opinionis vel dogmatis, uti 
materies fert, testimonia sunt, definitiones autem fidei non item. So 
also says Cardinal Bellarmine : Multa esse in epistolis decretalibus, 
quae non faciunt, rein aliquam esse de fide, sed solum opiniones 
Pontificum ea in re nobis declarant. De Rom. Pontif. lib. iv. c. xiv. 

70 The True and the False 

further introduction, brings the following proof. For, 
says he, * Pope Leo X. asserts in his Bull Exurge 
Domine of June 15, 1520, which excommunicates Luther 
and rejects his teaching, 6, " Had Luther done this 
(viz. come to Rome), " we should have proved to him, 
as clear as the light of day, that the holy Roman Popes 
our predecessors have never erred in their canons or 
constitutions." And this is an ex cathedra utterance ! 
Dr. Schulte really means it, for he adds in a note, 
Can any one venture to say that the words we have 
just quoted are not an ex cathedra utterance ? Had 
he quoted the passage in full from which he clips this 
morsel, and presented it to his readers, any candid 
reader would have been able to judge whether such a 
cursory remark could, by any possibility, be erected 
into a dogma of the faith, i.e. a real ex cathedra Papal 
utterance. So I will bring forward the whole passage, 
that the reader may judge for himself. It runs as fol 
lows: Had he, Martin Luther, done this (viz., as 
the context shows, had Luther come to Rome ), 
then would he assuredly, as we think, have entered 
into himself and acknowledged his errors ; nor would 
he have found so many faults in the Roman Curia, 
which he so violently attacks, giving an undue weight 
to the empty words of mischievous persons; and we 
should have shown him clearer than the light of day 
that the holy Roman Popes our predecessors, whom 
he traduces in such unmeasured terms, have never 
erred in those canons and constitutions of theirs, which 
he studiously assails. * 

* Quod si fecisset p o certo, ut arbitramur, ad cor reversus errores 
suos cognovisset nee in Romana curi quam tantopere vanis malevo- 

Infallibility of the Popes. 71 

Are we bound to look upon the particular parts of 
this passage as Papal utterances ex catJicdrd, even when 
the Pope says himself as we think (lit arbitramur) ? 
Or how can Dr. Schulte possibly claim for himself 
the right out of three principal propositions, apart 
from dependent propositions, to dock off the first 
and second propositions as not dogmatic,* and to 
brine forward the third clause, and that not entire, and 


allege this to be an infallible utterance? If Dr. Schulte 


assigns as his reason for taking out of the context 
this third proposition, and bringing it forward as an 
infallible utterance, because the Pope here says that 
if Luther had come to Rome, he, the Pope, would have 
taught him that the Popes have never erred in their 
canons or constitutions, and that he selects this pass 
age as an instance of his infallible teaching, because 
the Pope speaks expressly of teaching Luther, then I 
answer, not everything which the Popes might have 
taught, but what they actually have taught as doctrine 
on faith and morals, and defined, f by virtue of their 
highest apostolical power, as true, and to be held as 
such by the universal Church, that alone is an infallible 

lorum rumoribus plus quam oportuit tribuendo, vituperat, tot reperi- 
isset errata ; docuissemusque eum clarius luce sanctos Romanes Ponti- 
fices predecessores nostros, quos praeter omnem modestiam injuriose 
lacerat, in suis canonibus seu constitutionibus, quas mordere nititur, 
nunquam errasse. Bullarium Romanum, ed. Cocquelines, torn. iii. 
p. iii. Romse, 1743, p. 491. 

* For Dr. Schulte has omitted after the word constitutions the 
words which in the Papal bull immediately follow, viz. which he 
studiously assails ; words which contain a limitation of the foregoing 
general expression, constitutiones. 

\ Definit is the well-considered word of the Vatican Council. 

72 The True and the False 

utterance ex cathedra. Perhaps Dr. Schulte may here 
say, You may see plainly enough from the words of 
Pope Leo X. what his thoughts were, and how he 
hoped to teach Luther if he actually had gone to 
Rome/ To this I answer, It is quite beside the moot 
question what a Pope s tJumgJits were ; nor does it at 
all belong to a Papal utterance ex cathedra to consider 
what a Pope thinks, or even what a Pope thinks it well 
to give as a piece of private advice or information to 
any one in this or that manner. 

After this first most unfortunate proof which Dr. 
Schulte has brought forward, he tries a second, which 
is not a bit better. Accordingly he says : Just so has 
it been declared in express words by Pius IX. on the 
occasion of the condemnation of a book : " Finally, not 
to mention other errors, he rises to such a pitch of 
audacity and impiety * as with indescribable perversion 
to assert that the Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical 
Councils have overstepped the limits of their power, 
assumed for themselves the rights of princes, and have 
even erred in matters of faith and morals. Here 

I should like to ask, in sober earnest, whether any 
one ever before Dr. Schulte took it into his head to 
assert that dogmatic infallible definitions (utterances 

* The German word Gottlosigkeit, 1 which is rendered above by 
impiety/ is an imperfect translation of the Latin impietas (so also 
is our English word impiety. TR.) The words pius, impius, 
* pietas, and impietas/ all designate a certain state of mind towards 
God as well as a state of mind towards parents, and impietas is 
here used in this latter sense, inasmuch as the Pope is regarded a: 
the pastor omnium Christianorum in the sentence quoted from th 
Brief in question. 

f See Brief Multiplies inter, June 10, 1851. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 73 

ex cathcdrd) were sent forth by Popes as mere acces 
sory matter on the occasion of the condemnation of a 
book ? There is nothing whatever in all the funda 
mental principles of the theological science which can 
be brought forward to prove this, and therefore it is a 
purely gratuitous assertion that a Papal document by 
which a bad book is rejected and forbidden (the reasons 
being assigned) is on that account raised to the rank 
of a dogmatic definition, and the reasons assigned by 
the Pope for the condemnation of a book stamped as 
Papal utterances ex cathcdrd* 

* In a note to page 28 of Ins pamphlet he assumes as proved 
that this Brief speaks ex cathedra, and this he does for the following 
reasons : i. It appeals to the duty of preserving the flock of Christ, 
which has been committed to him (the Pope) from the first Pastor. 
Here, I ask, to preserve from what ? Dr. Schulte prudently holds his 
tongue upon, this point,, since it makes nothing for his point. But 
the context says plainly what this is. It is to preserve men from the 
pernicious reading bad books, and keeping them in their possession. 
That is expressly declared by the Pope to be the object of this Brief, 
not a definition on a matter of faith. The further reasons he gives are 
not a whit more to the purpose ; as, 2. The Pope speaks of his apos 
tolical office. 3. Of his apostolical plenitude of power. As if he 
didn t do this every time he exercised his supreme power in the 
Church. 4. The Pope commands open publication. As if nothing 
was ever published openly except definitions on matters of faith, and 
as if prohibited books were not so published. 5. He refers therein 
to the Syllabus. Just as if all that the Syllabus refers to is, for that 
very reason, i.e. because it is in the Syllabus, at once to be looked on 
as a dogmatic definition on a matter of faith. 6. He decides after a 
mature consideration, with the advice of the cardinals. Just as if 
many other things were not decided after mature consideration, and 
with the advice of the cardinals. If the circumstances which Dr. 
Schulte speaks of as proofs of what is ex cathcdrd are something of 
this sort, it is easy to see how utterly valueless such circumstances 
are, to enable him to make out his point. 

74 The True and the False 

The third and last proof of an infallible utterance 
which Dr. Schulte brings forward is closely connected 
with the second; it runs: And resting on this Brief, 
the Syllabus, in no. xxiii., condemns the proposition 
" Roman Pontiffs and Ecumenical Councils have trans 
gressed the limits of their power, have claimed for them 
selves the rights of princes, and have erred in their 
decisions upon faith and morals." Thus, amongst 
the doctrines of the Church he conclusively places the 
following proposition : Roman Popes have not over 
stepped the limits of their power, have not usurped 
the rights of princes, have not erred in their declara 
tions on faith and morals. In bringing forward this 
passage from the Syllabus, Dr. Schulte has not defi 
nitely asserted that he looks upon it as a dogmatic 
definition a Papal utterance, that is, ex cathedra. As 
he has not done this, he has saved me the trouble of 
going farther into the matter. It is sufficient for us 
to direct attention to the fact, that when in the first 
and second parts of this proposition of the Syllabus, it 
is said that the Roman Pontiffs have, first, not over 
stepped the limits of their power/ and, secondly, that 
they have not usurped the rights of princes/ these as 
sertions have no reference to a truth revealed by God, 
but bear upon historical events c I a later period, which 
events have nothing to do with faith and morals, but 
only with the acts of the Popes. So it is plain there is 
not here the objectum or subject-matter required for a 
dogmatic definition. 

Our readers can now judge for themselves that 
these three proofs of infallible teaching which Dr. 
Schulte has confidently brought forward (and he only 

Infallibility of the Popes. 75 

brings forward these thrse) are anything but valid or 
perfect proofs of his assertion, that Popes, in their 
infallible definitions, or utterances ex catliedrd, have set 
forth as the doctrine of the Church, or de fide, these 
propositions: 1st, that Popes have never erred in their 
constitutions ; 2d, that they have never overstepped 
the limits of their power; or, 3d, claimed for them 
selves the rights of princes. If Dr. Schulte has not 
proved this, as he most certainly has not, then his as 
sertion falls to the ground, * that a Catholic, in ac 
cepting the de fide definition of the Vatican Council 
" on the Infallible teaching orifice of the Roman Pon 
tiff," is bound to believe that the Popes have never 
erred in their constitutions; that they have never over 
stepped the limits of their power; have never claimed 
for themselves the rights of princes. Here, however, 
I must take care not to be misunderstood. I say only 
that a man is not bound by a definition de fide of the 
Vatican Council to believe all this besides; which is 
what Dr. Schulte, on untenable grounds, imagines that 
he discovers to be contained in this particular de fide 

Such is the poor outcome of the fundamental propo 
sition on which Dr. Schulte has erected his whole edi 
fice in this Pamphlet. 

* What should be the way in which a Catholic should conduct him 
self as regards these propositions of the Papal Brief, Multiplices inter, 
June 10, 1851, and also as regards the xxiii. (even if 
they are not doctrinal definitions), see above, 9 (3), and compare Bal- 
lerini De vi ac Ratiom Primatds Romanorum Pontificum, Veronae, 
1766, cap. xv. io. 

76 The True and the False 

Note A to No. 9 (6), chap. ii. p. 60. 

M. Emmanuel Cosquin, the Editor of the French translation of 
Bishop Fessler s Pamphlet, has appended the following note to page 
60, for the accuracy of which he makes himself responsible. He 
says : 

In order to complete what Mgr. Fessler here says, we borrow a 
passage from the Pastoral Instruction of the Swiss Bishops in June, 
1871, which has been approved by a Brief of Pius IX. "The Defini 
tion of the Council," say the Swiss Bishops, "has not in any respect 
brought about a separation between the head and the members of the 
teaching body in the Church. After the Council, as before, the Popes 
will exercise their office as Doctors and Chief Pastors in the Church, 
without forgetting that the Bishops arc appointed with them by the 
Holy Spirit, and, according to the constitution of the Church, as suc 
cessors of the Apostles, in order that, in conceit with the Pope, and 
in subordination to the successor of the Prince of the Apostles, fiiey 
may govern the Church of God. As the Popes did before the 
Council, so now after it will they continue to strengthen their 
brethren the Bishops in the Faith ; so also, in the government of the 
Church, never will they undertake anything which concerns the Uni 
versal Church without taking the Council and advice of the Bishops. 
As they did before the Council, so now also afterwards, will the 
Popes summon Councils ; ask the advice of the Bishops scattered 
over the world ; use every means in their power to obtain a full 
understanding respecting that deposit of the Faith which has been 
confided to the Church. It will be according to this only and im 
mutable rule of the Faith that the)- will decide, as if in court of supreme 
and last instance, and infallibly, for the Universal Church, all ques 
tions which can possibly arise on matters of Faith or Morals. 

" Nevertheless," add the Swiss Bishops, " even when the Popes 
use all possible means to obtain a profound knowledge of the ques 
tion of the Faith which is under consideration, as the duties of their 
office require, yet is it not this purely human knowledge, however 
complete it may be, but it is the assistance of the Holy Spirit that is 
to say, it is a special grace of his state peculiar to himself which 
gives the Pope the indubitable assurance of Infallibility, and which 
guarantees to all the faithful, with an absolute certainty, that the defi 
nitions of faith of the supreme teaching authority cf the Pope are 
exempt from error." 

Infallibility of the Popes. 77 

Note B to No. 12, chap. ii. p. 67. 

The French Editor has here another important note : 
In their Pastoral Instruction^ posterior to the work of Mgr. 
Fessler, and approved, as is known, by Pius IX., the Swiss Bishops 
cite the following passage of the Constitution of the Vatican Council : 
" The Holy Spirit has not been promised to the successors of St. Peter 
that they might publish according to His revelations a new doctrine, 
but in order that with His assistance they may holily guard and faith 
fully set forth the revelation transmitted by the Apostles that is to 
say, the deposit of the Faith." And they add : " It is, then, the reve 
lation given by God, the deposit of the Faith, which is the domain 
perfectly traced out and exactly circumscribed, within which the in 
fallible decisions of the Pope are able to extend themselves, and in 
regard to which the faith of Catholics can be bound to fresh obliga 
tions. ... It in no way depends upon the caprice of the Pope, or 
upon his good pleasure, to make such and such a doctrine the object 
of a dogmatic definition : he is tied up and limited to the divine reve 
lation, and to the truths which that revelation contains ; he is tied up 
and limited by the Creeds already in existence, and by the preceding 
definitions of the Church ; he is tied up and limited by the Divine 
law, and by the constitution of the Church ; lastly, he is tied up and 
limited by that doctrine, divinely revealed, which affirms that along 
side religious society there is civil society ; that alongside the Eccle 
siastical Hierarchy there is the power of Temporal Magistrates, 
invested in their own domain with a full sovereignty, and to whom 
we owe in conscience obedience and respect in all things morally 
permitted, and which belong to the domain of civil society." 

78 The True and the False 




14. IN this portion of his treatise, Dr. Schulte has 
been at the utmost pains to rake together from every 
quarter, especially from the middle ages, everything 
odious he can find against the Popes. 

In order to throw light upon this chapter of his 
Pamphlet, I must call the attention of my reader to the 
results of the investigation I made in the preceding 
chapter on the true extent of the subject-matter of 
Papal Infallibility according to the de fide definition 
of the Vatican Council, as a right appreciation of what 
follows depends strictly on what I have already said. 

(i.) Thus, in my present answer I have nothing to 
do with what the Popes have thought, or said, or done, 
or ordained to be done, but only with what they have 
defined to be a doctrine of faith or morals ex cathcdrd, 
and the propositions on the faith which a Catholic must 
therefore accept as already decided in ex cathedrd ut 
terances by the Popes, in virtue of their Infallible su 
preme teaching authority, if, as he is in duty bound to 
do, he accepts the de fide definition of the Vatican 

Infallibility of the Popes. 79 

(2.) Acts of Popes undoubtedly are not Papal utter- 
terances ex cathedrd. 

(3.) All that Popes have said in daily life, or in 
books of which they are the authors (supposing them, 
i. e. t to have written books), or in ordinary letters, are 
not dogmatic definitions or utterances ex cathedra. 

(4.) Utterances of Popes, either to individuals or to 
the whole Church, even in their solemn rescripts, made 
by virtue of their supreme power of jurisdiction, in is 
suing disciplinary laws, in judicial decrees,* and penal 
enactments, and in other acts of ecclesiastical govern 
ment, are not dogmatic Papal definitions or infallible 
utterances ex cathedra. 

(5.) Accordingly, none of these matters, acts of 
Popes (2), what Popes have said (3), utterances of 
Popes (4), have anything to do with the subject we 
have under discussion which is exclusively about In 
fallible definitions. 

(6.) Moreover, if we have before us a real and true 
dogmatic definition of the Pope, still only that portion 
of it is to be looked upon and accepted as an ex cathe 
dra utterance, which is expressly designated as the 
Definition ; and nothing whatever is to be so regarded 
which is only mentioned as accessory matter. 

Now, then, having laid down these general rules for 
our guidance, when I come to examine this portion of 
Dr. Schulte s treatise, I have to keep the two following 
questions, which arise out of it, entirely separate, and 
to give them a separate answer. They are : 

First, whether the particular propositions, which he 

* See no. Q (i), (3), and (4), fpr an explanation of these two terms. 

8o The True and the False 

arrays for our consideration, have been defined by an 
infallible Papal utterance as Catholic doctrine de fide on 
faith or morals? 

And, secondly, if they are not this, then what is 
really to be held as regards these propositions ? 

15. So, in considering these propositions, I shall be 
gin by answering the first of these questions, which it is 
clear, from the object Dr. Schulte has in view in his 
Pamphlet, is the principal question. 

The FIRST Proposition which he brings before us as 
Papal doctrine is: Temporal power is of the Evil One, 
and must therefore be subject to the Pope. 

For this proposition he refers to a certain Brief of 
Gregory VII. where, however, it is not found in these 
express words, and where the context gives a different 
meaning. But Dr. Schulte himself adds, These pas 
sages, however, are not uttered ex cathedra. As he 
says this himself, he saves me the trouble of proving 
that his proposition has nothing to do with Papal In 
fallibility, and cannot therefore be here considered. 

1 6. The SECOND Proposition is: The temporal 
power must always act unconditionally in subordination 
jto the directions of the spiritual/ 

Jn proof that this proposition is a Papal utterance 
ex cathedra, Dr. Schulte brings forward the celebrated 

. O 

Bull, Unam Sanffam of Pope Boniface VIII. This 
Bull, starting with a de ^/^proposition of the Nicene- 
Cgnstantinopolitan Creed, which has so long existed in 
the Church, contains a detailed exposition of the 
mutual relations of the temporal and the spiritual 

Infallibility of ihe Popes. 8 1 

power; and ends with a dogmatic definition, which 
is as follows: And this we declare, we say, we 
define, and we pronounce, that it is necessary for 
the salvation of every human creature that he should 
be subject to the Roman Pontiff. These words, and 
only these words, are the definition dc fide of the Bull 
Unam Sanctam. All the rest of the foregoing, after 
the very first words, which lay down an acknowledged 
article of faith as a basis, is a partly theological, 
partly canonical exposition of the relative positions of 
Church and State, made after the fashion of viewing 
such matters then in vogue ; but it constitutes no dog 
matic definition at all, which evidently commences with 
the words, We declare and we define (dffinimu$). J \ 
The definition itself asserts only the Catholic doctrine 

.Porro subesse Romano Pontifici omni creatune humanrc dc- 
claramus, dicimus, definimus, et pronunciamus, omnino esse de ne 
cessitate salutis. Extravag, Commun. c. i. De Majorit. ct Obed. 
The expression omni human creaturae is borrowed from the First 
Catholic Epistle of St. Peter, c. ii. v. 13, and in the Fifth Lateran 
Council it is explained by Pope Leo X. as meaning omnes Christi 
fideles (Hardujn s Ada Condi, torn. ix. Paris, 1714, col. 1830). I 
have further to remark, that the Latin word of the above definition, 
subesse] is correctly and exactly expressed by the word unterstehen, 
Ang. to stand under. 

f If Pope Boniface VIII. had wished to declare all that is repre 
sented in the Bull respecting the relations of the temporal to the 
spiritual power to be a definition de fide, he need only have placed the 
word definimus, we define, at its commencement. But this he did 
not do ; and if a man who, amongst all the Popes, is distinguished 
by his ability as a legislator, places the decisive word, not at the com 
mencement of the whole Decretal, but before the concluding words, as 
we have just accurately stated, surely no one can be entitled to assert 
that all that precedes these words is a Papal doctrinal definition. 

82 The True and the False 

of the Primacy of the Roman Pontiff;* for if the Pope 
has been appointed by God to be the Head of His 
Church, and if every one who cares for the good of his 
soul must belong to that Church, then it follows that 
he must be subordinate to the Pope as the Head of 
the Church (subesse Romano Pontifici). This surely is a 
truth which Catholic princes have ever acknowledged, 
and I do not imagine any Catholic prince denies it at 
the present day. 

It will be said, no doubt, Yes, in spiritual things 
the Catholic prince is subject to the Pope, but not in 
temporal things/ To this I answer: The decision of 
the above-named decretal contains nothing whatever 
about the Catholic prince being under the Pope in 
temporal things ; still less does it say, as Dr. Schulte 
formulates his second proposition, That the temporal 
power must act unconditionally in subordination to the 

But here again, perhaps, I shall be answered, 
True, it is not said so, but it is implied. 

To this I answer: According to the exposition, 
partly theological, partly canonical, certainly it might 

* That is, the spintual, to the omission from the definition of 
any mention of the temporal power. This is clearly proved from the 
fact that the words of Boniface, * Subesse Romano Pontifici esse de 
necessitate salutis, are taken from St. Thomas, Opusc. /., contr. 
Error. Grac. c. 32: Ostenditur etiam, quod subesse Romano Pon 
tifici sit de necessitate salutis. . . . Maximus in Epistola orienta- 
libus directa dicit : " Coadunatam ct fundatam super petram confes- 
sionis Petri dicimus universalem Ecclesiam secundum definitionem 
Salvatoris, in qua necessario salutis animarum nostrarum est re- 
manere et ei est obedire, suam servantes fidem et confessionem." 

Infallibility of the Popes. 83 

be supposed that this was the meaning ; but it is a 
general rule that whenever, in any dogmatic definition, 
a question to which it gives rise has not been touched 
upon (as is here the case with the question whether 
this definition extends to temporal matters), then this 
question is to be looked upon as still undefined.* It 
would have been defined if the Pope had said in his 
definition 4 that every human being was subject to the 
Pope, not only in spiritual but also in temporal mat 
ters. But then the Pope did not say this, although 
the question lay, so to speak, at his elbow. 

It may be still further objected: Well, if the 
Pope did not say so, he has shown clearly enough the 
plain common sense and import of the definition by 
his conduct towards King Philip resulting directly from 
this Bull. 

I answer again : Granting even the intention of the 
Pope in this definition did go beyond the plain words, 
and indeed so far beyond them as the subsequent con 
duct of Pope Boniface VIII. towards King Philip in 
dicates, still we must not overlook the fact that a mere 
intention, even if it may be assumed from actions to 
have existed, if it is not expressed (especially when it 
might easily have been expressed), is not to be looked 
upon as a dogmatic definition. Moreover, it must not 
be forgotten that Pope Clement V., in an explanation 
which he afterwards made on the extension of this 

Here we have just such a case as Perrone expressly speaks of 
above, at p. 56, calling it omissio definitionis, which he says cannot 
constitute an ex cathedid utterance ; thus the positive extent (trag- 
weile) of a definition is to be measured, not by what is left unsaid, 
but by what is said. 

84 The True and the False 

definition, recalled the legitimate interpretation of the 
Bull to its right proportions ; * and this interpretation 
probably corresponded with the real intention of 
Pope Boniface VIII. as far as can be gathered from 
his acts.f 

For the rest it may be conceded that in this con 
stitution Unam Sanctam of Pope Boniface VIII. there 
is a second dogmatic definition, and it is this : That 
there are not, according to the vain fancy and erro 
neous teaching of the Manichees, two principles. ^: 
This is de fide, since in theology it serves as a sure note 
of a dogmatic definition when an opposite doctrine is 
branded by the Pope as heretical, as is the case here, 
where the doctrine at variance with the true doctrine 
is stigmatised as heretical. 

17. The THIRD Proposition of Dr. Schulte is : The 
Church is entitled to bestow and to take away every 
temporal sovereignty. 

(i.) His first proof is taken from the words of Pope 
Gtegory VII. spoken in a solemn session of a Council 
at Rome in the year 1080. Well, what are the words 
which Dr. Schulte brings forward ? Our readers will 
be astonished to hear. They are a prayer which the 

* Vide Extravag, Com. c. ii. Meruit : Dt Privilegiis. 

\ It is therefore carefully to be noted, as a matter of great import 
ance, that the renewal and approbation of the constitution of Boniface 
VIII. s Bull Unam Sanctum, at the eleventh session of the Fifth Lateran 
Council (see Harduin, Ada Condi, torn. ix. Paris, 1714, col. 1830), 
took place onty after the addition of the declaration of Pope Clement V. 
contained in the afore-named decretal, Meruit. 

| Nisi duo(sicut Manichaeus) fingat esse principia, quod falsum 
et hsereticum judicamus. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 85 

Pope addresses to the two Apostles, St. Peter and St. 
Paul, earnestly entreating them to exercise the just 
judgment, which God has committed to them, on the 
Emperor Henry IV., and so to make manifest that in 
very deed they can both take away and can bestow 
upon this earth empires, kingdoms, principalities, and 
the possessions of all men, according to the deserts of 
the individual. And this prayer to the Apostles, 
forsooth, is to be construed into a dogmatic defini 
tion? To expect that his readers will admit that, is 
assuredly to suppose them to be very deficient in judg 

(2.) He continues : It is a fact that Gregory VII. 
did depose King Henry IV., did release his subjects 
from their oath of allegiance, and did install Rudolph 
in his place. Well, that is an action of the Pope," 

* As regards both this and the following points, I must again call 
my reader s attention to the fact that, for greater clearness, I keep the 
two questions quite separate in my explanation, viz. first, whether 
the acts and expressions of the Popes brought under our notice in Dr. 
Schulte s propositions are definitions made by the Pope in his Infal 
lible teaching office, and therefore to be regarded, according to the 
Vatican Council, as Catholic doctrine de fide ; and, secondly, if this is 
not the case, then what is to be thought of these acts and expres 
sions? Strictly speaking, the first question alone belongs to the 
object of this reply of mine to Dr. Schulte ; and if I can prove that no 
thing that he brings forward belongs to Papal Infallibility in the sense 
of the Vatican Council, then Dr. Schulte s Pamphlet is sufficiently 
answered. But for the sake of my readers who may perhaps be dis 
quieted on account of these acts and expressions of Popes which Dr. 
Schulte brings into notice, though they do not really belong at all to 
the Infallible teaching office, and are not subject-matter for the 
faith of a Catholic, I will not fail to direct theif attention to the lead 
ing points of view in order to guide them to a right judgment on these 

86 The True and the False 

but it is not an Infallible definition which a Catholic 
must accept. 

(3.) Again : Pope Gregory IX., in the year 1239, 
declares the Emperor Frederick II. excommunicated, 
and releases from their oath of allegiance* all who had 
pledged their fidelity to him. Well, that is a penal 
sentence whereby excommunication, with all its legiti 
mate consequences according to the laws of that 
period, was fulminated on the offender ; but it is not a 
definition of faith, it is not an utterance of the Pope 
ex cathedra upon faith or morals at all, as anybody who 
will open his eyes may see. 

(4.) The same answer holds good in regard to the 
deposition of the above-named Emperor Frederick II. 
by Innocent IV. in the year 1245, in which were bound 
up the consequences of such a sentence, according to 
what was the Jus publicum common in those times. f 

(5.) * Pope Nicholas V. deposed the Antipope 
Felix, (Duke Amadeus of Savoy) in the year 1447, anc ^ 
declared all his possessions confiscated, as the posses 
sions of an anathematised heretic. t Neither is this a 

definition of faith, but an execution of the punishment 
which, according to the Jus publicum common in those 
times, was bound up with the Anathema, an execution 

* So in the Bull Qu. a F>iderictis, in the Bullar. Rom., ed. cit. t. iii. 
p. 292. 

f So n fie Bull Ad Apostolica, inthe Bullar. Rom., edit. cit. t. ii . 
p. 300, and in the Acts of the Council of Lyons, I. Session iii.; Har- 
duin s Acta Condi, t. vii. Paris, 1714, col. 381. 

\ Raynaldi, Annal. Eccles., ad ann. 1447, n. 18 (t. xviii. p. 338), and 
compare this with ad ann. 1446, n. n (ibid. p. 325). 

Infallibility of the Popes. 87 

(cxecutio) with which, in this case, the King of France 
was charged.* 

(6.) No more is there a dogmatic definition before 
us in the Papal Bull whereby King Henry VIII. of 
England, in the year 1535, was threatened with an ex 
communication, carried into effect in the year 1538, 
with all its legal consequences, according to the Jus 
publicum common in those times. f It is a simple penal 
sentence in the spirit and in the form which once was 
customary, but which in later times fell into disuse. 

(7.^ The same holds good of the penal sentence 
pronounced upon Queen Elizabeth of England by Pope 
Pius"V., issued in the year 15704 

Now, since all the Bulls here brought forward 

7 o 

(3) to (?) have not the faintest trace of being Papal, 
doctrinal, or de fide definitions, utterances of the Popes 
ex catJicdrd ; and since they plainly and uncontestably 
belong to an entirely different class of Papal deliveries, 
it clearly follows that no one of these is to be regarded 
as an infallible utterance of Popes, and this alone it is 
which, by the definition of the Vatican Council, a Ca 
tholic is to believe and obey as part of the doctrine of 
the Catholic Church. It is hardly credible that a 
learned man like Dr. Schulte should have asserted all 

Brachium auxilii saecularis Caroli regis Francorum invocandi 
facultatem concedimus, says the Pope to the Archbishop of Aix, to 
whom this despatch is addressed. 

f In the Bull Ejusqui, in the Bullar. Rom., edit. cit. t. iv. p. i. p. 
125, and so in the Bull Cum Redemptor, in the Bullar. Rom., 1. c. p. 

\ In the Bull Megnans i <i Excelsis, in the Bullar. Rom., cd. cit. t. iv. 
p. iii. p. 98. 

88 The True and the False 

these Bulls to be infallible. Such an assertion is both 
unscientific and contrary to common sense. If, how 
ever, he has not put forward this assertion in earnest, 
why has he piled up all these quotations out of the 
Bulls he has ransacked, which have really nothing 
whatever to do with the teaching office of the Pope ? 

(8.) Dr. Schulte proceeds with another Bull of Pope 
Paul IV., issued in the year 1559,* which is rightly de 
scribed in the collection of Papal Bulls under the title 
of Renewal of previous censures and punishments 
against heretics and schismatics, with the addition of 
further penalties. Why, the very title, which gives a 
true account of its contents, is of itself alone enough to 
show every one who reads it, that this Papal delivery is 
not a definition de fide, and cannot, therefore, be an ut 
terance ex cathedra. And yet Dr. Schulte, in the most 
decided way, asserts that it is, saying that it is directed 
to the whole Church, signed by the Cardinals in the 
most solemn form, so that it is certainly delivered 
ex cathedra, (Dr. Schulte s Pamphlet, p. 34). f One can 
hardly believe one s eyes when one sees such manifestly 
erroneous assertions set forth with such an affectation . 
of demonstrated certainty. One really feels sorry for 
Dr. Schulte that he should have made such an enor 
mous blunder in the sight of every one who knows 

Vide the Bull Cum ex Aposfolafus, in the BuUar. Rom,, cd. cit. t. 
iv. p i. p. 354. Innovatio quarumcumque censurarum et poenarum 
contra haereticos et schismaticos, &c. 

f It must seem quite ridiculous to any one who has any sort of 
knowledge of the subject to hear a person boldly assert that such and 
such a Papal Bull must be infallible, because it is directed to the 
whole Church and signed by all the Cardinals. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 89 

anything at all about such matters. To us it is beyond 
all question certain, that this Bull is not a definition of 
faith or morals, not an utterance ex cathcdrd. It is 
simply an outcome of the Fuprcme Papal authority as 
legislator, and an instance of his exercising his power 
of punishing ; it is not done in the exercise of his 
power as supreme teacher. I should abuse the patience 
of my readers if I were to attempt to prove in detail 
what is manifest to all mankind in every line of the 
Bull. Who ever imagined before Dr. Schulte that the 
Pope was infallible in the province of declaring legal 
pains and penalties ? 

Dr. Schulte finds in this Bull various things which 
he designates by the terms remarkable ! still more 
remarkable ! most remarkable! until he comes to the 
epithet inconceivable! pp. 34, 35. And indeed it is 
4 very remarkable, nay quite inconceivable, that Dr. 
Schulte, who is a canonist, should have so utterly mis 
understood the introduction to this Bull, and the sense 
of a passage further on in it, 6. I am conscious I am 
giving utterance to a grave reproof, and I must entreat 
my reader s patience while I prove it. Dr. Schulte 
finds it very remarkable ; he says that * the election 
of a heretic as Pope is valueless from the first, and is 
here declared to be null and void. That is, he says, 
* The Pope and Cardinals assume the possibility of an 
infallible Pope being found deviating from the faith ! 

To set this supposed case in its proper light the 
following remarks may be useful. Pope Paul IV., no 
doubt, supposes the case possible (however improbable 
it might be) that a man who clings to an heretical doc 
trine might be chosen Pope, and also that after he has 

90 The True and the False 

mounted the Papal throne, he might still hold hereti 
cal doctrine, or, even it may be, express it in his inter 
course with others ; not, however, that he would teach 
the whole Church this heretical doctrine in an utterance 
of his supreme teaching office (ex cathedra]. From 
making such an utterance God Himself, through His 
special assistance, preserves the Pope and the Church. 
If, then, as has been suggested, a man were elected Pope 
who might uphold heretical doctrine (not supposing 
that he could declare such a doctrine to the whole 
Church formally as Catholic doctrine de fide, or pre 
scribe it to be held as such), then we should have the 
case before us for which Pope Paul IV., in the above- 
named Bull, 6, provides, by quashing the election of 
such a man to the Papacy, and declaring it null and 
void. This is one of the cases which theologians mean 
when they say the Pope (homo privatus], as a private 
individual, may err in a matter of faith ; that is, when 
he is considered simply as a man, with merely his own 
human conception of a doctrine of the faith. As Pope, 
as supreme teacher of the Catholic Church, he cannot 
err, when, by virtue cf the assistance of God, promised 
and vouchsafed to Kin, he solemnly defines a truth re 
vealed by God, and prescribes it to be held by the Uni 
versal Church. It is clear that there are in the one 
person of the Pope two different active powers (evep- 
yfiai} - first, the ordinary power of thinking and viewing 
things ;* and, secondly, the solemn defining power for 

* Of this ordinary faculty, Ballerini, in the passage we have al 
ready referred to, says very appropriately : Ex quo summi Pontifices 
ad Petri sedem promoti sunt, sicut non idcirco exuerunt humanam na- 
turam, ita neque humanam agendi et opinandi rationem deposuerunt. 1 

Infallibility of the Popes. 

the whole Church. I might illustrate this 
parallel case of a judge who has to decide upon a suit. 
In his own private life he may, perhaps, hold and ex 
press his opinion, and that on very various occasions, 
but in the suit nothing passes for law but his solemn 
judicial utterance, which, however, is by no means in 
fallible. The example, however, will suffice to show 
that a man who is invested with an official position can 
be readily conceived as thinking and speaking as a man, 
on the one hand, and, on the other hand, as an official 
personage in his forensic utterances and acts. 

After making this distinction, plain enough as I 
conceive it to be, the introductory words of this Bull 
will be quite intelligible ; why, that is, the Pope ex 
presses his conviction how perilous it would be if, 
even in his private life, a Pope were to admit an error 
in doctrine, and what sad confusion would arise if 
the said Pope, as a private individual, were to be guilty 
of heresy, and yet had to put into force penalties 
against heretics, he as Pope, having no judge higher 
than himself.* 

(9.) Dr. Schulte says further on, p. 35 : It is, more 
over, quite an ordinary introduction to Bulls to find 
that the Pope is " Lord of the world," at least as far as 
it lies in his words and acts to make himself so. So, for 
instance, says he, * We find the ex cathedra (!) speak- 

The question, an Papa, si in haeresim incidft (i.e. as homo pri- 
valus) deponi possit? has been investigated and answered indifferent 
ways in former times. The introductory words of the Bull point to a 
solution of the difficulty in the sense of Pope Paul IV. ; the real mean 
ing of the words, however, depends on the right understanding of the 
word redargui. 

92 The True and the False . 

ing Bull of Leo X. Divina disponcnte, in the eleventh 
session of the Fifth Lateran Council of Dec. 19, 1516, 
says Through the grace of God, . . Elevated on 
the high watch-tower of the Apostolate, and placed 
over peoples and lands, &c. 

Here, again, we have, according to Dr. Schulte, an 
ex catJicdrd speaking Bull. But what is it about ? 
Why, it is really neither more nor less than the well- 
known Concordat between Pope Leo X. and King 
Francis I. of France.* This is the Concordat which 
for more than two centuries regulated the relations 
between Church and State, and which the kings of 
France themselves have so energetically upheld. And 
pray will any one be so good as to tell me when Con 
cordats were first elevated to the rank of dogmatical 
decisions and utterances of the Pope ex catJicdrd ? 
The honour of this discovery rests with Dr. Schulte. 
But will any one in sober earnest believe that the 
kings of France from the time of Francis I., kings who 
have been so jealous of the prerogatives of their crown, 
a Louis XIV., and other equally zealous sticklers for 
the rights of kings, would have been likely to be so 
mightily pleased with a Bull in which, according tc 
Dr. Schulte s view, the Popes were called the Lords of 

To be assured of this, we have only to look at the words witr 
which the solemn reading of this Bull, in the eleventh session of th< 
Fifth Lateran Council, is introduced. These are the words : Post I 
modum vero, Rev. Pater D. Maximus, Episcopus Iserniensts, ascen I 
dit ambonem et legit schedulam, in qua continentur conconlata cun 
Christianissimo Rege Francorum. . Cujus tenor sequitur, et est talis 
Leo Episcopus, servus servorum Dei, etc. Divina disponente cle 
mentia, &c. Harduin, Acta Condi, t. ix. Paris, 1714, col. 1809. 

Infallibility of the Popes, 93 

the world ? Or how comes it that Dr. Schulte has 
had the good luck to discover so dangerous a doctrine 
in this Bull, which for more than two centuries has 
escaped the observation of French kings and learned 
men? And now the truth must be told that Dr. Schulte 
has mutilated this Bull of a most essential portion of its 
introduction ; for the real introduction runs as follows: 
By the grace of God, through which kings rule and 
princes exercise authority* (the Pope) elevated on the 
high watch-tower of the Apostolate, and over peoples 
and lands, &c. The words * through which kings rule 
and princes exercise authority (the very exact words 
whereby the temporal power of kings and princes is 
expressly acknowledged to be of divine grace), Dr. 
Schulte has thought fit to omit ! I leave it to my 
readers to pass their own judgment on such mutilations 
and omissions. 

(10.) Finally, in the last passage brought forward 
by Dr. Schulte from a Bull of Pope Sixtus V. in the 
year 1586, he stumbles on the following words: As 
the Roman Pontiff, the successor on the chair of Peter 
and true Vicar of Christ, holds by the divine preordi 
nation (divina preordination?}, the crown of the high 
est Apostolical dignity, and thus is in the place of 
Christ and of Peter upon earth ; so the Cardinals of 
the holy Roman Church stand at the side of the Pope 
upon earth, representing the persons of the holy Apos 
tles, as they served Christ our Lord, when He preached 
the Kingdom of God, and wrought out the mystery 

* Divina disponente dementia, per quam reges regnant et prin- 
cipes imperant. Harduin, Ada Condi, t. ix. Paris, 1714, col. 1809. 

94 The True and the False 

of the salvation of man. On this passage he makes 
the following commentary : * The theory is a simple 
one: the Pope is Peter; the Cardinals are the Apos 
tles ; ergo, the Catholic Church is wholly concentrated 
in the Roman Church. The Bishops, apart from the 
six Cardinal Bishops, are mere assistants. This, then, 
is the meaning of the third chapter of the dogmatic 
constitution of July 18, 1870 (p. 36 of Dr. Schulte s 

Strange that it should be now near three hundred 
years since Sixtus V. issued his Bull, and that we 
Bishops have, during all this time, never gained even 
an inkling from this Bull that we were no longer looked 
upon as the successors of the Apostles, and had been 
degraded to the position of mere assistants ! The 
honor of this discovery also rests with Dr. Schulte. 
He seems not to be aware that as long ago as the time 
of St. Ignatius of Antioch, the immediate disciple of 
the Apostles, that holy Bishop says : Strive to do 
everything in union with God, under the presidency of 
the Bishop, who is in the place of God, and with the 
priests, who are in the place of the Council of the 
Apostles. ~ : If this great and renowned disciple of the 
Apostles thus spoke, then surely might Sixtus V. 
speak as he did. Moreover, the Bull of Pope Sixtus 
V. is not a definition de fide, not a Papal utterance ex 
cathedrd ; it is nothing more than a simple Bull for the 

* St. Ignatius, Epist. ad M agues, c. vi. (Pahurn Apostoli- 
eorutn Opera, ed. G. Jacobson, (Oxonii, torn. ii. p. 314) ; so often 
he speaks in like manner, Epist. ad Trail, c. in. (ibid. p. 366) ; 
Epist. ad Smyrn. c. viii. (ibid. p. 430); Epist. ad Pkiladetp. c. v. (ibid. 
P- 394)- 

Infallibility of the Popes. 95 

organization of the College of Cardinals, settling how 
many the number of the Cardinals ought to be, what 
qualifications those ought to have, who are to be taken 
into the high office of Cardinal, and the like.* Surely 
no sensible person will count as one of the doctrines of 
the Catholic Church how many Cardinals there ought 
to be, and what should be their qualifications? More 
over, to quiet all anxiety as to whether, from this Bull 
of 1586, the Bishops have lost their old privileges and 
their former dignity, we may bring forward what took 
place on April 24, 1870. On that day, in the third 
session of the Vatican Council, Pius IX. uttered the 
de fide definition : The Bishops of the whole world, 
gathered together with our authority in the Holy 
Ghost in this Ecumenical Synod (they are the Pope s 
own words), sit together with us, and give their judg 
ment with us. Just as was done in the Church of old. 
Well, then, from the year 1586 up to the year iS/O, 
this Bull of Pope Sixtus had not deprived the Bishops 
of anything that belonged to their most important 
rights. There is here, however, just one point in which 
I find I can agree with Dr. Schulte it is where he says 
* that nobody compares a Papal utterance with the 
Gospel ; but then I do so on very different ground 
from him; my ground being that I am thoroughly con 
vinced that there is no man living who would utter 
such a downright untheological absurdity as to com- 

Scc the Bull in question of Sixtus V., Postquant Verus, in 
the nullar. Rom., eel. cit. t. iv. p. iv. p. 279, where the contents of the 
title are given as follows: De S.R.E. Cardinalium creandorum 
pncstantia, numero, ordine, rctate et qualitatibus, et dc optione sex 
Cathedralium Ecclesiarum, quae Cardinalibus conferuntur." 

96 The True and the False 

pare a Papal utterance with the Gospel. The Gospel 
is, as is the complete Word of God, inspired by Him ; 
that the Papal definitions de fide, infallible utterances 
ex catJiedrd as they are, are inspired by God, no one 
has ever taught, either in the Vatican Council or in 
the Catholic Church. 

1 8. The FOURTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is: 
The Pope has the right to bestow upon Catholic 
rulers lands and peoples who are not Catholic, and 
rulers so made may make them slaves. 

In proof of this he alleges: Pope Nicholas V., by 
his Bull Romanus Pont if ex, as regards Western Africa, 
gave full leave to King Alphonsus of Portugal to take 
possession of all Saracens and heathen, and other ene 
mies of Christ, in all those parts, as well as of their 
kingdoms, and to make them their own inheritance, 
&c. Now I hope it is, by this time, clear that a Bull 
giving over any temporal property, of any kind what 
soever, is not a Catholic article of faith ; and of its be 
ing so there is not a trace in the Bulls cited by Dr. 
Schulte directed to King Alphonsus of Portugal.* 
Surely any man of ordinary abilities can distinguish 
between an infallible definition of faith and a certain 
course of conduct which, at a particular time and un 
der particular circumstances, seemed proper for the ex 
tension of the Catholic faith amongst Turks and 
heathen ; and this it is, which the Bulls quoted by Dr. 
Schulte are concerned with. And the case is the same 

* Vide Raynaldi, Anna/. Eccles., ad ann. 1443, n. 10-12 ; also ad 
ann. 1454, n. 8 ; and the Bull of Nicholas V., Romanus Pcntifex, Jan. 
8, 1454, in the Bultar. Rom,, ed. cit. torn. ifi. p. iii. p. 70. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 97 

in respect of all the Bulls quoted by Dr. Schulte under 
this fourth head, as any one may see who will be at 
the trouble of carefully reading these Bulls. But per 
haps some of my readers may ask, Have the Popes 
really, in the fifteenth century, given away countries 
by virtue of their apostolical plenipotentiary authority ? 
To this I reply: It is not what Popes do in the pleni 
tude of their authority, but what they define and teach 
by virtue of their supreme power of teaching in mat 
ters of faith, that is an utterance ex cathedra, and this 
it is which alone belongs to the question in hand. Here 
plainly is nothing whatever about a definition de fide. 

19. The FIFTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is: The 
Pope can enslave and bestow away those Christian 
subjects whose sovereign, or temporal superior, is un 
der the anathema of the Pope. 

It would indeed be dreadful if, together with the 
definition de fide of the Vatican Council, delivered by 
the Infallible teaching authority of the Roman Pontiff, 
this was an article of faith which every Ca :holic, who 
hoped to be saved, was obliged to believe and obey. 
But if anybody has felt a qualm on reading this pro 
position, he may set his fears at rest. The case is not, 
after all, so desperate ; it is only one of Dr. Schulte s 
self-invented Catholic de fide doctrines, of which the 
Catholic Church really knows nothing at all ; it was 
invented by Dr. Schulte to horrify people, and to keep 
them from giving their assent to the real de fide doc 
trine on the Infallibility of the Pope in doctrinal 
definitions. This is the proof he gives of his proposi 
tion : 

98 The True and the False 

1 It took place, and was declared by Pope Clement 
V., who in the year 1309, in a quarrel with the Vene 
tians, excommunicated doge, senate, and people, de 
clared them deprived of all rights, bade ecclesiastics 
refuse to exercise their office except in administering 
baptism and penance for the dying, confiscated all the 
possessions of the Venetians, and preached a crusade 
against them. * 

Anybody may see that there is nothing here but a 
penal sentence, f which, however, Dr. Schulte has not 
even taken the trouble to give us correctly, as it is not 
the whole people who are excommunicated, and there 
is no mention of a crusade. But I will not be at the 
pains to enter into the correction of matters which are 
wholly irrelevant. 

A similar penal enactment of Gregory XL against 
the Florentines, in the year 1376, which he next men 
tions, belongs just as little to the province of Infalli 
bility, and the same may be said of what he says about 
Adrian IV. and Paul III. 

20. The SIXTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is : * The 
ecclesiastical laws upon ecclesiastical immunity, and 
upon Papal authority, rest upon divine inspiration. 

This is a very remarkable proposition. In proof of 
it, Dr. Schulte continues, * Accordingly, Pope Julius II., 
in the fourth session of the Fifth Lateran Council, de 
clares this, in the following words: " Julius, Bishop, 
servant of the servants of God, for a future memorial 

Raynal., An :al. Eccles., ad aan. 1309, n. 6. 

f- Judiciarium edictum, as Raynaldus expressly and very pro 
perly calls it, t. xv. p. 43. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 99 

of this transaction, with the consent of the holy Coun 
cil. Albeit, the dispositions of the holy Canons, of the 
holy Fathers, and Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, 
and which have been sanctioned in legitimate* General 
Councils for the defence of the freedom of the Church 
and its dignity, and for the protection of the Apostolic 
See, after mature deliberation must be held inviolate 
by all, and their decrees are esteemed unalterable, as if 
they had issued under divine inspiration," &c. 

Upon this proposition I have three remarks to 
make: first, the passages quoted from Pope Julius II. 
do not occur in a dogmatic definition, but in a per 
emptory judicial citation, f and it is going a great way 
for any one to say that a judicial citation on a matter 
of discipline is to be regarded as an utterance ex cathe 
dra. In the second place, Dr. Schulte would have done 

* To these words Dr. Schulte appends the following remark : In 
generalibus legitimis Conciliis ; a remarkable epithet ! Are there> 
then, even General Councils which are only sham councils? To 
prevent any one from being misled by this mischievous suggestive 
question, I esteem it my duty to give the real reason of the word le 
gitimis being added. This we have plainly shewn us in the Bull of 
Pope Leo X. Pastor ^S/erfius, in the eleventh session of the Fifth 
Lateran Council. At that time there was an attempt to favour the 
Pragmatic Sanction by assuming the authority cf the so-called Gene 
ral Council of Basic, to which title it had no claim after it had been 
displaced from the rank of General Councils. So the Synod of Pisa 
had falsely assumed the title CEcumenicum Generale atque Universale 
Concilium, as we may see in the first session of the Fifth Lateran 
Council (Harduin, Act.i Condi, t. ix. col. 1585.) For this reason Leo 
X., in the Bull Pastor JEtennis, already cited, says : Nullum infra 
hoc temporis spatium pneter hoc Lateranense Concilium Icgitime 
fuisse celebratum. Harduin, Ada Condi, t. ix. col. 1828 

f Monitorium contra Pragmaticam et ejus assertores. Harduin, 
Acta Condi, t. ix. col. 1642. 

ioo The True and the False 

well to have quoted, not merely the preamble, Albeit 
the dispositions of the holy Canons are esteemed un 
alterable, but also what follows in the preamble,* 
wherein we are told how far, nevertheless, the Pope is 
authorised to alter them. In the third place, it really 
is too bad that, when in the record quoted it is said, in 
the very words of the Pope, that the decrees of the 
canons are esteemed as //"they were issued under divine 
inspiration, Dr. Schulte, in his proposition, should 
omit this very expression, asif^ with all its important 
signification, simply saying, The laws of the Church 
upon ecclesiastical immunity and on Papal authority 
rest upon divine inspiration. 

21. The SEVENTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is: 
* The Church has the right to exercise an unconditional 
censure upon all writings. 

The Bull of Pope Leo X., issued in the tenth ses 
sion of the Fifth Lateran Council, in the year 1515, 
Inter Sollicitndincs,\. serves as Dr. Schulte s proof for 

This Bull is simply a disciplinary law with a penal 
threat, but is no definition on doctrine ; this is clear 
for two reasons. The first reason is, that in the ex 
press words of the enactment in question the Pope 
says: That to restrain the bad results of a misuse of 
the invention of printing a thing so good in itself and 
so useful he feels himself constrained to adopt certain 

1 Licet sacrorum canonum instituta . . . immutabilia censean- 
tur, are the words in the original text. 
f German gleichsam. TRANSLATOR. 
\ Harduin, A eta Co::cil, t. ix, col. 1779. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 101 

regulations proper for the purpose (volentes de oppor 
tune super his remedio providere). This is not the way 
in which the Church utters her solemn definitions de 
fide. That, however, this enactment, which not the 
Pope alone, but the General Council of Lateran, had 
issued, belongs to the alterable discipline of the Church, 
the rescript of Pope Pius IX. of June 2, 1848, shows ; 
in which important alterations are adopted in respect 
of this Bull of Pope Leo X.* 

22. The EIGHTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is: 
4 The Pope has the right to annul State laws, State 
treaties and constitutions, if they appear to him dero 
gatory to the right of the Church and clergy. 

(i.) In proof of this, he brings the following : That 
he has power to annul laws generally is shown and 
maintained in the Bull Pastor sEternus of Leo X. Dec. 
19, 1516, in the eleventh session .of the Fifth Lateran 
Council, wherein the pragmatic sanction in France was 
rescinded under penalty of the greater excommunica 
tion. (The pragmatic sanction is a kind of edict de 
religione of the fifteenth century.) Well, this is quite 
true, viz. that in this Bull of Leo X. the pragmatic 
sanction was annulled in France, but Dr. Schulte should 
not have kept his readers in ignorance that in this same 
Bull it is said in plain words that the King of France, 
Louis XL, had already previously annulled this same 
pragmatic sanction, f and that after this the Pope took 

e Pii IX. Pont. Max. Acta, pars i. pp. 99-101. 

f For instance, Pope Leo says : Nos mature attendentes, Prag- 
maticam Sanctionem a cl. m. Ludovico XI., Francorum Rege Chris- 
tianissirno revocatam,cassatam atque abolitam/ Harduin,^r/a Condi. 

IO2 The Trite and the False 

from it all its validity on all points,* in an ecclesiasti 
cal point of view. This puts the matter in quite a dif 
ferent light, and we may well wonder how it came to 
pass that Dr. Schulte, who is so ready to bring before 
us the Acts of this Council, never saw this passage in 
them. I must not forget to add that, irrespective of 
all that has just been said, there is here no question 
of a definition de fide in the Bull. This anybody can 
see without any remark of mine. 

(2.) The second proof of his proposition, which Dr. 
Schulte introduces after the following fashion, is as 
unfortunate as the first. Against one whole category 
of laws subjecting the clergy to the temporal jurisdic 
tion, or taxing Church property, there are, as is ad 
mitted, innumerable Papal statutes, so that it is hard 
to make a selection. Some proofs will suffice from the 
so-called Bull In Ccena Domini,\ " We curse and we 

t. ix. col. 1828. In the same way, Francis I. consents to the revoca 
tion of the Pragmatic Sanction, as is specially declared in the Con 
cordat concluded between him and the Pope on the day specified, 
Dec. 19, 1516 (Harduin, Acta Condi, t. ix. col. 1812). Whoever desires 
to do so may find the curious old French original text of this Concordat 
in Andre s book, Cours tie Droit Cunon, Paris, 1853, t. ii. p. 168, where, 
from pp. 169-170 in the introduction to the Concordat itself, the re 
moval of the Pragmatic Sanction by the two French kings, Louis XI. 
and Francis I., is circumstantially narrated. 

* Why this was necessary Pope Leo X. explains in his Bull Div na 
Disponente, in Harduin, Acta Condi, t. ix. col. 1811. 

f BulUi in Ccem Domini is the name given to that Papal Bull 
which constitutes a kind of ecclesiastical penal statute in different 
important matters, and which was published in Rome every year 
on Holy Thursday, Feria V. in Ca~na Domini, as a proof that it was 
still in force ; hence the name. Like all hilman penal laws, it has 
undergone alterations from time to time. The penalty pronounced 
for the particular cases specified in the Bull was the penalty of ex- 

Infallibility of the Popes. 103 

damn Lat. excommunicamus et anathcmatizamus " x -all 
those who lay upon their country new burdens or 
taxes besides those which are due in equity, or which 
are imposed in particular cases by special Papal per 
mission, all those who increase such taxes, or who 
impose new taxes, or who seek to revive those already 

Well, a simple ecclesiastical penalty is not a dog 
matic definition, and, even if issued by the Pope, is not 
a Papal utterance ex cathcdrd. 

Does not Dr. Schulte really know that this Bull has 
been cancelled now for a hundred years and more, and 
has ceased to be published on Holy Thursday? 

And does he not know also that Pope Pius IX., in 
his Bull Apostolica Sedis moaerationi, Oct. 12, 1869, 
has expressly declared that from that time only cen 
sures imposed ipso facto for certain cases were still to 
be held in force, and that all other ecclesiastical penal 
ties of this kind were then revoked ? The Pope at the 
same time gave his reason of this revocation of penal 
ties in these words: These ecclesiastical penalties, 
which for security of the Church herself, and for the 
maintenance of her discipline, as well as for the 
restraint and improvement of the unbridled license of 

communication. The copy of this ecclesiastical penal statute which 
Dr. Schulte brings forward belongs to the time of Paul V., 1610. It 
is in the Bulla>\ Rom., t. v. p. iii. p. 393. 

* It deserves to be noticed that Dr. Schulte translates the 
words of the Bull excommunicamus et anathematizamus, by the 
odious and, at the same time, incorrect formula, We curse and 
damn (Ger. verfluchen und verda nmen), instead of the correct trans 
lation We separate from the ccrrniunion of the faithful and lay under 

IO4 The Triie and the False 

evil-disposed men, having been at different times issued 
with the most excellent intentions, have now become 
very numerous; and a portion of them, from altered 
times and altered habits of mind, having lost the object 
and the reasons for which they were introduced, have 
also lost their former usefulness and their applica 
bility/ * 

It is not a particularly happy line of argument that 
has to draw its proofs from the obsolete cancelled Bull 
In Ccena Domini, in order to demonstrate to the world 
what a Catholic has to believe and to accept, if he 
accepts the definition of the Vatican Council on the 
Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff. 

(3.) Dr. Schulte s third proof is drawn from the 
fact that Innocent X. in his Bull Zclo Domus Dei of 
the year i648f by virtue of his apostolical plenipoten 
tiary power, declared the articles of the Peace of 
Westphalia, which were displeasing to him, to be null 
and void. First, I have to remark upon this, that the 
Pope did not declare the articles in question void as 
simply displeasing to himself, but as violations of the 
just rights of a third party. It was the duty of the 
Pope, as Head of the Catholic Church, to protect the 

* Cum animo Nostro jam pridem revolveremus, ecclesiasticas 
pensuras, quae per modum latae sententiae ipsoque facto incurrendae, 
ad incolumitatem ac disciplinam ipsius ecclesisc tutandam, effrenem- 
( que improborum licentiam coerccndam et emendandam sancte per 
singulas aetates indictae et promulgatae sunt, magnum ad numerum 
sensim excrevisse, quasdam etiam, temporibus moribusque mutatis, 
a fine atque causis ? ob quas impositae fuerant, vel a pristina utilitate 
atque opportunitate excidisse. So run the words of Pope Pius IX. 
in the Bull of Oct. 12, iSfg. 

f Bullar. Rom., ed. c!t. t. vi. p. iii. p. 173. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 105 

rights of the Church in their full extent. For this 
purpose he here makes use of all the means afforded 
him by his spiritual office which circumstances admit 
of his using, such as earnest remonstrances, protests, 
or declarations of the infringement of his rights, and 
also ecclesiastical penalties, especially excommunica 
tion. It is undeniable that in the Peace of West 
phalia, as well as in the acts of the Congress of Vienna in 
later times, the rights of the Church were in many 
ways violated. Against these violations of rights the 
Pope protests before God and before the world. He 
might, indeed, be pretty certain that the protest would 
be of little avail, but no fair inquirer will find fault 
with any one who has been despoiled of his rights for 
raising his voice and crying out aloud before God and 
men :* This spoliation is invalid ; I do not acknow 
ledge it to be just. A person who so acts is not to be 
branded as a disturber of the peace, and still less 
should be taunted with this when, after having given 
clear and manifest proofs of his rights, he showed that, 
in the interests of peace, he made no objection to come 
to terms with the despoiler.f 

In this account there is no sort of contradiction between the 
Pope and the German Bishops, who seemed to sanction the Peace of 
Westphalia by appealing to it. The Pope did not reject the whole of 
the treaty of the Peace of Westphalia, but only certain articles which 
were breaches of the rights of the Church. To these articles the 
German Bishops made no appeal. 

\ This is not the place critically to investigate whether the passage 
to which Dr. Schulte takes objection on this occasion is a purely im 
aginary fiction or not, viz. that the number seven of prince-electors 
was established by apostolical sanction. Any one may see what can 
be said for it in Card. Bellarmine s De Roman. Ponfif. lib. v. cap. viii. 

io6 The True and the False 

(4.) A further proof is drawn from the Austrian 
Concordat, because in this the Holy See gives its con 
sent that in certain cases the secular court may pro 
nounce judgment on spiritual matters and persons. 

It is inconceivable what this can have to do with 
the Infallibility of the Pope. And why upon earth is 
it to be considered a thing contrary to justice for the 
Pope to give his consent or permission to a change in 
an existing law of the Church? If even this is not 
allowed him, then, indeed, is the independence and 
autonomy of the Catholic Church come to an end alto 
gether ! A person who sanctions this simply wishes to 
annihilate the Church. 

(5). The Allocution of Pope Pius IX. June 22, 
1868, after the fundamental State laws the so-called 
confession laws had been passed in Austria, is here 
brought forward by Dr. Schulte, because these laws 
were judged and partially condemned from an ecclesi 
astical point of view. But is it to be considered an 
infallible definition de fide that the Pope has expressed 
his own view of this matter? If not, why does Dr. 
Schulte introduce the subject at all? Surely the Pope 
had a right to ask for justice to be clone him? Surely 
he might demand that a solemn concordat should be 
observed, which had been formally made in all its con 
stituent parts? And as it was not observed, he, in his 
Allocution, protested against, rejected, and pronounced 
invalid, all that was contrary to the doctrine and to 
the rights of the Catholic Church ; and in particular 
he protested against all that was contrary to the treaty 
that had been made. At a time when we hear com 
plaints on all sides of broken treaties, why should we 

Infallibility of tkc Popes. 107 

take k ill of the Pope that he, too, should oppose a 
breach of treaty with himself by such means as he had 
at his command ? 

(6.) Finally, Dr. Schulte rakes together several state 
ments out of the Syllabus to serve as a proof of this 
proposition. These statements, however, are not given 
as in the words of the Syllabus, but in the form which 
a certain learned theologian has formulated the oppo- 
sites of the rejected theses. But granting that this 
theologian is to be highly esteemed as a learned man, 
yet it is a generally received fact in the Catholic 
Church that the formulae of Catholic theologians are 
not definitions dc fide. 

For the rest, Dr. Schulte assumes that the Syllabus, 
with all its eighty propositions, is one of those Papal 
definitions of doctrine of which the Vatican Council 
speaks in its fourth session. This assumption he has 
failed to prove. Dr. Schulte assumes it to be so as a 
fact, while the truth of the matter is, that this fact is 
called in question by the gravest theologians. Their 
doubt is founded especially upon this, that the form of 
the Syllabus is quite different from that which the Pope 
usually adopts when he delivers a solemn definition dc 
fide. In order to convince himself of this, Dr. Schulte 
need only peruse the Bull of Leo X. against Luther, 
the Exsurge Domine, which he himself adduces as a 
Bull, speaking ex catliedrd, p. 27 of his book ; or the 
celebrated Bull of Pius VI. Auctorem Fidei, August 28, 
1794.* In these and in similar documents the intention 

* Bullet) ii Roviani Continuatio, t. ix. (Romoe, typis Rever. Cameras 
Apost. 1845), p. 395, and following. 

io8 The True and the False 

of the Pope is expressed in the most decided manner, 
either at the beginning or at the end, that certain pro 
positions must, by virtue of his supreme apostolical 
power, be regarded as incompatible with the Catholic 
doctrine on faith or morals. Now it is true that the 
propositions of the Syllabus are designated * in the 
title of the document as * Errors of our time which the 
Holy Fathers have on different occasions denounced ; 
but then it is certain that many of the documents in 
which a special error is denounced, and from which the 
propositions are drawn, are not utterances ex cathcdrd. 
But it may be said, perhaps, that the Pope, by requir 
ing that the Syllabus should be made known to the 
whole Episcopate, desired to raise all his utterances on 
the errors contained in the Syllabus to the position of 
doctrinal definitions, such as would be, according to the 
definition of the Vatican Council, utterances ex catlic- 
drd. This many theologians think may be assumed to 
be doubtful, untila fresh declaration is made on the subject 
by the Holy See. For, as the Syllabus stands, neither 
the introduction nor the conclusion is sufficiently cleat 
upon this point. It is true the Bishops had an authen 
tic announcement made to them through a letter of the 
Cardinal Secretary that the Syllabus was arranged and 
sent out at the command of the Holy Father, but the 
reason for this is given, and it comes to no more thar 
this, that perhaps many persons would not be able tc 
meet with the printed documents from which the pro 

* The complete title of the Syllabus is : Syllabus complecten: 
praecipuos nostras setatis errores qui notantur in Allocutionibus Con 
sistorialibus, in Encyclicis aliisque Apostolicis litteris, SS. D. N 
Pii PapselX. 

Infallibility of the Popes. log 

positions of the Syllabus are drawn. Certainly in the 
Papal Encyclical Quanta Cura, Dec. 8, 1864, which was 
promulgated with the Syllabus, it is said that Pius IX. 
has often raised his voice during his Pontificate against 
the principal errors of our time ; but in that Encyclical 
there is nothing to show absolutely that the Pope in 
any one single word thought of the Syllabus. 

23. The NINTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is : The 
Pope has the right to reprove all temporal sovereigns, 
emperors, and kings for their misconduct, and on occa 
sion to punish an offence (in foro externo], as well as, 
in the case of a mortal sin, to bring it before the spiri 
tual forum. 

In proof of this Dr. Schulte brings t\vo passages 
from the book of Canon Law written by Popes.* The 
first of these is directed to the Grecian Emperor 
Alexius; the second to the French prelates, and con 
cerns the King of France. Neither the one nor the 
other of these decretals is a definition de fide. No 
trace of a definition occurs therein. In both the Pope 
justifies his conduct towards the one and against the 
other of the two rulers mentioned, according to the 

7 o 

point of view common in the Jiis publicum of those 

24. The TENTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is : 
Without the consent of the Pope no tax or impost 
can be laid upon any cleric or church. 

* C. Solitsc 6, dcM. et O. (i. 33), and C. Novell. 13, de Judiciis 
(ii. i). 

no The True and the False 

In proof of this Dr. Schulte brings forward a Bull 
of Boniface VIII., which, however, as he admits, was 
soon limited by Benedict XI., and afterwards entirely 
cancelled by Clement V. But, he concludes, 4 the 
Bull /;/ Ccena Domini took up the matter, and in the 
Syllabus it is defined that Popes have never overstep 
ped the limits of their powers. I have already shown, 
No. 22 (2), that the Bull In Ccena Domini is now no 
longer in force ; it is, in fact, entirely revoked. Dr. 
Schulte is thus left quite in the lurch, without the 
shadow of a reason for his assertion. His remark, by 
the way, * In the Syllabus it is defined that Popes have 
never overstepped the limits of their powers, does not 
help out his tenth proposition, and could only serve to 
strengthen the proof from the Bull /;/ Ccena Domini. 
But as that Bull no longer exists, why, it follows that 
it cannot be strengthened. 

Nor can it for a moment be admitted that the Pope 
has defined this in the Syllabus. The general asser 
tion that the Popes have overstepped the limits of their 
powers is, indeed, mentioned amongst other errors. 
And the proposition, wherein it is laid to the charge of 
the Popes that they have in general overstepped the 
limits of their powers, is most justly condemned as er 
roneous. But that is a very different thing from a 
positive dogmatic definition that a Pope never in any 
respect overstepped the limits of his power. 

25. The ELEVENTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is: 
1 The Pope has the right to nullify the oath of alle 
giance taken to sovereigns whom he has excommuni 
cated, and to forbid his subjects to obey him or his laws. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 1 1 1 

In proof of this he brings forward the previously- 
mentioned Bulls of Gregory IX., Innocent IV., Paul 
III., and Pius V. Since, however, as I have already 
shown, no one of these Bulls is a definition dc fide, 
not an utterance ex catlicdrd, they do not belong to 
the subject in hand, and can constitute no proof that 
any one is obliged to receive the above-named pro 
position as a Catholic doctrine de fide. 

26. The TWELFTH Proposition of Dr. Schulte is: 
* The Pope can deprive excommunicace persons of all 
their social rights, and in particular can dissolve their 


(l.) The first proof of this is: Innocent IV. in his 
Bull Cum advetsus of Oct. 31, 1243,* confirms the laws 
of the Emperor Frederick II. by accepting them. 
These laws condemn those guilty of heresy to the 
punishment of death at the stake ; so in his Bull Ad 
cxtirpanda of May 15, I243,t there follows a long list 
of punishments against heretics/ Here Dr. Schulte 

himself relieves me of the trouble of proving that 
there is here no definition de fide, no Papal utterances 
ex catliedrd, by saying that the Pope only confirmed 
in the first of the rescripts, just mentioned, the penal 
ties declared by Frederick II. against heretics. This 
is the fact. And nothing could be a clearer proof than 
this, that there is no question in these rescripts of a 
definition on faith or morals ; for I fancy every 
body knows now that imperial penal laws are not the 

* Bullar. Rom. ed. cit. t. iii. p. 2g. 

t Bullar. Rom. ed. cit. t. iii. p. 324 ; where, however, this Bull bears 
date May 15, 1252. 

T 1 2 The Tme and the liaise 

place to seek for or to find Catholic doctrinal proposi 
tions. It ought to be mentioned, moreover, that this 
confirmation of the Pope was not issued for the whole 
Church, but expressly only for Lombardy, the Marches 
of Treviso, and the Romagna. Dr. Schulte s second 
Bull, that of Innocent IV., is wholly irrelevant as a 
dogmatic definition. It is designated simply a la\v, 
and nothing more. If I am asked the reason of this 
statement, I point simply to the wording of the Bui!, 
which consists of thirty-eight paragraphs, each of 
which is noted clown as Lex/ with the ciphering 
! Lex i, Lex 2, * Lex 3, &c. Surely this is suffi 
cient proof. Moreover, this enactment is expressly 
limited by the Pope to Lombardy, the Romagna, and 
the Marches of Treviso. It really is difficult to char 
acterise as it deserves such a mode of treating; the 


subject under consideration. Dr. Schulte recklessl) 
brings forward as infallible, and therefore unalterable i 
definitions of doctrine issued for the whole Church, law. 
of Popes expressly made for particular occasions. The 
penal laws of the Popes against heretics, he has pilec 
together in his notes, have nothing Avhatever to dc 
with unalterable definitions of doctrine, but are ex 
ainples of the spirit of the age in which they wen 
passed, and of a discipline subject to change, but the? 
in no way belong to the Infallibility of the Pope. 

(2.) As a further proof of his proposition, he men 
lions the Bull of Paul IV., Cum quorundam, o! 
A U &- 7> r $55>* i n which Bull those several penaltie 
which are usually pronounced only against relapse 

"" Bullar. Rom. ed. cit. t. iv. p. i. p. 322. 

. Infallibility of the Popes. 1 1 3 

heretics are pronounced also against those who deny 
certain specially named truths of the Catholic faith, as 
the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the Divinity of our 
Lord Jesus Christ, &c. In his Bull there is no defini 
tion dc fide, nothing but a simple penal law against 
certain persons who denied particular truths of the 
Christian faith which had been defined long ago. 
Here Dr. Schultc permits himself to digress into a 
violent sally on the subject of the irregularity * which, 
according to the ecclesiastical laws, is incurred by those 
who pronounce sentence of death, or those who carry 
the sentence into execution, and the different treat 
ment which the Church adopts towards those who pass 
a laiv declaring the sentence of death for certain 
offences, and the judge who condemns to death in virtue 
of that law. When he here calls the Church s action 
a fiction to stifle the conscience, and nicknames it 
Pharisaism, he writes without knowing what he writes 
about. The irregularity spoken of is not ex dclicto, 
but ex defectu ; it is not incurred because the person 
who pronounces a just judgment has committed any sin 
which might burden his conscience. It is only in case 
of a man committing sin that the reproach of stifling 
the conscience has any meaning, or that, the word 
* Pharisaism is at all applicable. Irregularity ex de 
fectu lenitatis was introduced by the Church, because 
the Church did not think it a proper or seemly thing 
that one who, even in the most just manner, had been 
brought into immediate contact with the death of a 

* The word irregularity is known to theologians as a technical 
word, denoting an impediment as regards ordination or the exercise 
of the sacred ministry. 

ii4 The 7^rue and the False 

human being, be it by the condemnation of him, or by 
the execution of the sentence, should receive or exer 
cise the office of Holy Orders. How far this respect 
for the dignity of the clerical office should be extended 
depends upon considerations which have nothing to do 
with sin. 

(3.) Finally, as his last reason, Dr. Schulte brings 
forward, The conduct of Pope Urban V. towards Ber 
nard Visconti, Duke of Milan, in the year 1363. As 
the matter is pictured to us by historians, he ordered 
his condemnation to be published, whereby he declared 
him a heretic, infidel, and schismatic, anathematised 
by the Church ; he freed his subjects from their oath 
of allegiance, and his wife as a Christian from her mar 
riage contract with a man who was a heretic and an 

Here we have before us, as Dr. Schulte himself 
says, only a sentence of condemnation against a prince 
who was deserving of punishment, not a definition de 
fide. Surely he is not going to make all judicial sen 
tences which the Popes have pronounced for many 
hundred years past do duty as utterances ex catJicdrd ? 
In this case such decisions would be innumerable. 
Canonist as he is, he cannot mean to assert this 
in sober earnest. Besides, we may justly demand 
that the exact words of the sentence should be pro 
duced, in which the Pope, contrary to the clear and 
express directions of the ecclesiastical law, dissolved 
the marriage tie on account of heresy. Without this 
we cannot consider so grave an accusation against a 
Pope. Instead of this sentence we have only the 
casual words of a late historian, Spondanus, and we 


Infallibility of the Popes. COHBEC 

arc not tolcl whether ]ie ever really saw the 
himself, or only reported it second-hand. It would be 
waste of time to enter upon an exposition of the true 
meaning of a judicial sentence when the words used 
are of so much importance, and when we do not know 
what those words were.* 

In Raynaldi s great work mention is indeed made 
of the terms of this sentence, but the words respect 
ing the dissolution of the marriage tie do not occur 
there, f 

27. Finally, the THIRTEENTH Proposition of Dr. 
Schulte is : * The Pope can release from an obligation 
(as of oath and vow) both before and after the oath or 
vow has been taken. 

* Proved/ he says, * by the Privilfgium which 
Clement V. gave to King John of France and his con 
sort, and to all his successors, that all and every one 
of their father confessors, whether secular or regular, 
might dissolve and commute, for works of piety, all 
vows which they have already taken, and all which 
either they or their successors might take in future,;}: 

* In this uncertainty about the passage on which the proof is 
based there can be no real question of a contradiction between the 
penal sentence of Urban V., in the year 1363, and the later dogmatic 
definition of the Council of Trent in the year 1563; and thus the 
scornful remark of Dr. Schulte comes to nothing. His remark is on 
p. 50 of his Pamphlet : Thus it follows that Urban V., with the con- 
sent and in the presence of the College of Cardinals and of the Roman 
Church, passed a fearfully solemn act against a proposition de fide. 
How, in the face of such an instance as this, can people plume them 
selves on their invention of the phrase ex catkedrd ! 

\ Raynaldi, Annal. Eccles. ad ann. 1363, n. 2, t. xvi. p. 423. 

\ Here follow three exceptions, which I omit for brevity s sake. 

ii6 The True and the False 

as well as all oaths which they had already taken, or 
which they or their successors might hereafter take, 
and change them into works of piety. But no one 
says that Papal Privilegia* are infallible definitions de 
fide. And if they are not this, then they do not belong 
to the matter on hand. Faculties to commute vows 
into other works of piety are still reserved to the Pope. 
As regards oaths ; in the case of an oath by which a 
promise is confirmed, where the oath ought not to be 
kept, but where the person, to whom something has 
been promised on oath, insists on the fulfilment of the 
promise, there a Catholic has the option of referring 
the decision either to the Pope, or to his father con 
fessor, or he may decide for himself whether this is 
really a case in which obligation to stand by the oath 
ceases. Should a case occur in which the obligation to 
the observance of an oath ceases, as for instance when 
its observance would lead to the violation of some 
moral duty, then it would be unaclvisable to leave the 
decision to the person himself who has made the oath, 
as he often has an interest in the dissolution of the 
oath.-f For the rest, it is to be observed that the 
Pope, in granting this privilege to the confessor so 
chosen, does not give an unlimited power to commute 
vows and oaths into works of piety, as Dr. Schulte 

* Privilegia qusedam regibus Franciae impertita, in D Acherv s 
Spicilegium, Paris, 1723, is the correct title of a long list of such docu 
ments as we now call faculties received from the Pope. They are 
dispensations from fasting, indulgences, permissions respecting 
Masses, absolutions in foro externo, &c. 

f And this is why such an oath is referred to the Pope, because he 
is an impartial judge. TRANSLATOR. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 117 

asserts, but only vows and oaths which a person cannot 
observe, according as the confessors for the time being 
judge to be desirable for the good of the souls intrusted 
to them.* This last part of the document Dr. Schultc 
has entirely omitted. That, moreover, this faculty 
should be exercised on such vows and oaths as were 
not yet in existence at the time of the grant of the 
privilege is just as natural as that, when a Bishop now 
adays gives a priest power to absolve from sins for a 
period of four years, he should not limit this power of 
absolving to sins which have already been committed, 
but should give power to absolve sins which, in the 
course of one, two, or three years, may hereafter be 
committed and confessed. 

The example adduced by Dr. Schulte of the nulli 
fication of an oath by Paul IV., A.D. 1555, will serve 
as confirmation of the explanation I have given : * the 
Pope, he says, * in the case of unlawful oath expresses 
his will to release the emperor, and declare him free 
from his obligation. f But a release from an oath, 
which the Pope has thought good to make in a par 
ticular case, has never yet been regarded by any one as 
an infallible utterance ex cathedra. 

We have now arrived at the conclusion of Dr. 
Schulte s alleged Papal doctrinal propositions and acts. 

* Prout secundum Deum et animarum vestrarum et eorum saluti 
viderit expedire. 

f It should here be noticed that the authority for this mere oral 
utterance of the Pope, Bzovius, (Annal. Eccles. ad ann. 1555, n. 36, 
Colonise, 1640, t. xx. p. 306) does not mention the record from which 
I he drew his information ; so this presumed Papal utterance is of a 
somewhat imaginary character. 


The True and the False 

The result of the whole investigation has been that 
the passages which he has brought forward as his 
proofs are not such expressions as are to be regarded 
as utterances ex cathedra, that is as infallible defini 
tions on the Catholic faith or morals.* Accordingly a 
Catholic who accepts on faith, in accordance with his 
obligation, the definition de fide of the Vatican Coun 
cil on the Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pon 
tiff, is in no way obliged to believe these thirteen 
propositions, which I have given word for word from 
his work, to be infallible utterances. 

* The Bull Unam Sane t am alone forms an exception to this state 
ment, but not even that Bull is an exception in its full extent, as Dr. 
Schulte asserts, See above, no, 16, 

Infallibility of the Popes. 119 

Second Part. 


28. OUR task as regards the principal question is now 
discharged. But as, for the quieting of my reader s 
conscience and to enable him to see his duty clearly, I 
undertook to discuss not the principal question only- 
whether a Catholic in accepting the Vatican definition 
is in reality bound to accept these thirteen propositions 
as articles of faith but also to examine any other in 
cidental questions which might arise out of the expres 
sions and doings of Popes to which our attention has 
been directed, I will now briefly discuss this second 
question. It resolves itself into two heads, to which 
these Papal expressions and acts refer : first, the re 
lation of Popes to the State ; and secondly, their 
treatment of heretics. Now as regards the relation 


of Popes to the State we must bear in mind that all the 
expressions and acts of the Popes towards the State 
which have been mentioned in the principal proposi 
tions occur in the period from the eleventh to the six 
teenth century. Hence it follows : 

(i.) The Jus publicum, as it. was then laid down 

* Translator s heading. 

I2O The True and the False 

and acknowledged, must be accepted as furnishing us 
with the means of forming a right judgment of the 
precedents which took place in this period. 

(2.) This Jus publicurii was founded upon the gen 
eral understanding, then prevalent, that European 
Christendom was based on the principles of the Cath 
olic religion and derived its stability from it. 

(3.) Accordingly, a man who did not belong to the 
Catholic Church could hold no position in public life. 

(4.) Every one who is invested with any public 
office was obliged to direct his life according to the 
doctrines and principles of the Catholic religion. 

(5.) If he did not do this, he fell under the penal 
authority of the Church and of the State. 

(6.) The penal authority of the Church was, in its 
supreme instance, exercised by the Popes, who being 
independent, did justice fearlessly, even against the 
great and mighty of this world. 

(7.) Nor must it here be left out of consideration 
what an important influence the laws of the old Ro 
man Empire, Justinian s code, and the Novellae exer 
cised in the West, and how many and what important 
rights [ jura ] were conceded to the Church by mean. 
of these old Roman statutes.* 

* ride Savigny s History of the Roman Law in the Middle Aga 
2d edit. vol. iii., Heidelberg, 1834. p. 87, where he says : As far bar! 
as from the times of Charlemagne it had been the custom to look upo 
a large portion of the European nations and states as in one lastin 
alliance, and to assume a solidarity even in, it might be, that sped; 
thing which distinguished them one from another. In this range < 
matters common to all were comprised " The Imperial Power 
Roman Catholic Hun-ch Constitution," "The Clerical State," 
Latin, the language of all social transactions ;" and under this cat* 

Infallibility of tJie Popes. 1 2 1 

(8.) Nothing can give plainer evidence of the pre 
vailing opinion in those times with regard to the 
Jus publicum in social life than the fact that kings 
again and again had recourse to the Popes to obtain 
their judgment on a matter.* Had this practice not 
been grounded in the Jus publicum of the time, the 
Emperor Frederick II. would never have undertaken 
to defend himself at the first general council of Lyons 
before Innocent IV., through his plenipotentiary am 
bassador, in order to escape the Pope s condemnation. 
This shows how fully he recognized the Pope s right. 

(9.) According as this great family of nations 
brought out in different ways its internal conviction 
that its social life rested on a Catholic foundation, and 
must be penetrated through and through and guided 
by the Catholic truth, so it considered it its duty to 
spread everywhere the knowledge of the Christian 
Catholic religion. 

(10.) Temporal dominion was undoubtedly every 
where recognised as ordained by God.f 

gory fell also " The Roman Statute Law," which was considered not 
as the special law of any Roman province nor even as the private law 
of any particular State, but as the common Christian European law. 

The decretal of Pope Innocent III. may serve as an example of 
this, in cap. 13, Novell. De Judiciis, whence we see that the King of 
England cited the King of France before the Pope in order to have 
right done to him. Vide also c. 15, De Foro Competenti, ii. 2. 

f Pope Innocent III. in his decretal, Solitce, c. 6, De M. et O.,i. 33, 
says this expressly in the following words : Ad firmamentum igitur 
:celi % hoc est, universalis ecclesise fecit Deus duo magna luminaria, id 
?st, duas instituit dignitates, qu sunt Pontificalis auctoritas et regalis 
^otestas. This may serve as a confutation of Dr. Schulte s false propo 
sition, as though the Popes had taught the temporal power is from 
he wicked one. P. 29 of his work. 

122 The True and the False . 

These, then, we find to be (i) the generally received 
views of law (jus) in that period, but these views are in 
no sense (2) Papal definitions of faith made for all pe 
riods till the end of time. 

These two things, then, must be kept quite distinct. 

Here I am going to take the liberty to introduce a 
passage which bears upon this subject from an histori 
cal work of one of our most celebrated German authors, 
which will, I think, tend to throw light on our subject, 
and enable us to see it in its true proportions. The 
writer is Frederick Hurter. In his history of Innocent 
III., having made a thorough investigation of the 
records of that time, he says : The Church was the 
source of all higher social life in the human race ; 
hence in her there was safety, outside of her there was 
no safety. In her mission, which was to include the 
whole world, in order to bring all people of the earth 
to the knowledge and adoration of the true God, he 
who was at the head of the Church was compelled, as 
his most sacred obligation, to bring into her dominion 
those who were afar off, to remove those who had 
separated from her, and so had to consider that the 
gain of those who entered into the great hospice of sal 
vation was of more importance to themselves than to 
the Church. (Book II.) 

Again : The Church secured the Empire against 
that absolutism which will not endure by its side any 
law but its own. The veneration of the Empire for the 
Church procured that universal recognition of her in 
all countries, without which Christendom would have 
been abandoned to the separatist influence of ideas 
customs, and inclinations of peoples, and split asundei 

Infallibility of the Popes. 123 

into ever so many sects, or perhaps have become the 
property of a school. But so (by this mutual support) 
it formed itself into that bond of union which embraced 
the nations, which sustained their social life, promoted 
civilisation, and maintained the spiritual rights of all, 
and enabled the Christian West, as one whole in living 
faith, to sustain the shock of the Mahometan East, 
which was contending with it for the empire of the 
world in all the fresh vigour of a doctrine kindled by 
human passion. (Book II.) 

Again : * There lay in Christendom for all its vota 
ries a uniting and a binding power. The rights of all 
were put under its protection, the duties of all were 
marked out and consecrated by it. He who stood at 
the head of the great Christian community had to pro 
tect some, and yet to be mindful of others. * And thus 
there was founded a world-government which gave due 
honor to each lawful authority when moving in its 
own proper sphere. 

Again : If ever the dream of a universal peace is 
to be realised, it can only be possible by the general 
acknowledgment of some one spiritual power, raised 
above all others, to investigate and smooth the way in 
the strifes of kings and peoples, to mediate and to ad- 

This passage recalls the words of a French philosopher which 
may interest our readers : Est-ce un si grand mal de rappeler aux 
princes memes leurs devoirs et les droits des nations lorsqu ils les 
oublient ? Qui reclamera done en faveur des peuples, si la religion, 
cette seule et unique barriere, qui nous reste centre le despotisme et 
le desordre, se tait? N est pas a elle aparler, lorsque les lois gardent 
le silence ? Qui enseignera la justice, si la religion ne dit rien ? Qui 
vengera les mceurs, si la religion est muette? En un mot, de quoi 
servira la religion, si elle ne sert a reprimer le crime ? 

i 24 The True and the False 

just ; and when that king or nation shall be treated as 
the common enemy, who, trusting in his own strength, 
shall refuse to acknowledge the decisions of this su- 


preme spiritual power. (Book XX. Hurter s History 
of Innocent III.) 

29. In close connection with this stands the treat 
ment of heretics in that period. 

The Catholic Church and heresy are, in their own 
nature, and in the mind of the Church, antagonistic as 
truth and error. 

I mean, in the mutual relation they hold one to the 
other as regards the inner self of both the one and the 

Externally, however, we find that in the course of 
centuries the Church has adopted a very different con 
duct towards heretics, according to the different cir 
cumstances in which she has been placed in her inter 
course with the world. 

Thus we may distinguish four different periods. 

The * First Period reaches from the commencement 
of the Christian era to the first decade of the fourth 
century. During this time, in treating with heretics, 
Christians acted according to the words and examples 
of the Apostles. What this way was, the Apostle 
Paul told the faithful : * A man that is a heretic, after 
the first and second admonition avoid, knowing that he 
that is such an one is subverted and sinneth, being 
condemned by his own judgment (Titus iii. 10, ii). 
And the Apostle John says : If any man come to you 
and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your 
house, nor say to him, God speed you (2 John v. 10). 

Infallibility of tJic Popes. 125 

This is the way in which the early Catholics protected 
themselves from heretics ; they excluded them from 
their .communion, and in some cases, even broke off 
intercourse with them in order that they might not be 
corrupted by their errors. 

The * Second Period begins with the First Council 
of Nicaea, A.D. 325, at which time the Christian rulers 
of the Roman Empire sent the principal teachers of er 
ror into banishment* from political reasons, and in or 
der to prevent their doing mischief, because there was 
good reasons for considering them disturbers of the 
public peace ; and severe fines and other punishments 
were imposed on those who were the disciples of their 
errors. This period lasted for some centuries, as long 
a; the Roman law was in force. 

I In the Third Period, that of the Middle Ages, 
rulers went farther ; fines were not only followed by 
confiscation of goods, but even capital punishment or 
imprisonment for life was pronounced against heretics, 
and this by the imperial laws of the Emperor Frede 
rick Il.f and other emperors ; to these laws the Popes 
were a party, as Leo X.;f expressly testifies. At that 
time, people looked upon heresy as a breach of the 
imperial law, to be punished with the loss of honour, 

* In this jway Arius, and the few Bishops who had voted against 
the majority of 318, in the definition of faith made at that Council, 
were sent into banishment by the Emperor Constantino, aa v/as also, 
later on, Nestorius : see Sozom. Hist. Eccl. lib. i. c. xx. xxi. ; Philo- 
storgii. Hist. Red. lib. i. n. 9, 10 ; Evagrii Hist. EccL lib. i. c. vii. ed. 
Vales ; Cod. Theodos. DC Hareticis (xvi. 5), 1. 13, 14, 19, 30, 31, 32, 33, 
34, 45, 52, 54, 64, ed. Ritter, t. vi. p. i. Lipsise, 1743. 

f Vide Pertz, Mon. Germ. Legum, t ii. pp. 287, 288. 

\ Vide Bull Exsnrge Domine, Bullar. Rom. t. iii. p. 488. 

126 The True and the False 

forfeiture of goods, deprivation of civil rights, &c. 
Testimony of this is expressly given by Frederick II., 
who declares that in punishing heretics, he was but ex 
ercising his own temporal power, wholly independently, 
and was not acting under the influence of any spiritual 
authority. The reason the emperor gives for inflicting 
such heavy penalties was because it was a greater 
breach of the law to offend against the Divine Majesty 
than against any earthly majesty. This was the general 
way of viewing men s public social relations at that 
time. This Period lasted till well on into the sixteenth 

The Fourth Period, which has been running its 
course up to the present time from the seventeenth 
century, did away with those penal enactments which 
had been passed under very different circumstances, as 
the reasons which had led to their being enacted, and 
the principles on which they rested, were no longer in 
force since the establishment of Protestant States in 
Europe. This is the period in which we meet with 
only protests or the reservation of rights, when, that is, 
the rights of the Church, whether divine, or legal, or 
accruing to her from contract, were violated in favour 
of heretics. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 127 




30. IT is in this section of his Pamphlet that Dr. 
Schulte shows us most clearly that the position in which 
he places himself with regard to the Vatican definition 
is the very reverse of mine. I will endeavor to point 
out the contrast. 

We both begin by taking for granted that the whole 
controversy originates in the de fide definition of the 
Vatican Council, on the Infallible teaching office of the 
Roman Pontiff. Out of this definition he deduces the 
following proposition, which, however, he omits to de 
fine more accurately : What the Popes have declared 
to be the doctrine of the Church, that is true, and must 
be believed and followed in practice by all Catholics. 

To this he appends a long list of Papal declarations 
drawn from documents of the most different kind 
briefs, laws, concordats, citations, penal judgments, &c. 

Of these documents he asserts that, if a person re- 
ceives the Vatican definition they must, one and all, 

It must not be forgotten that Bishop Fessler places at the head 
of his chapters the titles of the very chapters of Dr. Schulte which he 
refutes. The Pleas here spoken of are the replies supposed to be 
made by the Ultramontane defenders of Infallibility, not Fessler him 
self, to the view maintained by Di^Schulte. TRANSLATOR. 

128 The True and the False 

be regarded by him as Papal definitions, must be be 
lieved in and followed in practice. 

The reply, that this is an incorrect statement, and 
that, in stating his proposition so generally, he has 
started with an error, which has led him into further 
erroneous assertions and conclusions, he turns aside by 
saying, that such pleas are merely devised to quiet the 

This, then, is his position. 

Mine, however, has been : (i) To lay plainly before 
my readers the Definition ; (2) to weigh carefully its 
wording and its sense ; and (3) to give my reflections 
upon it ; and I say that these reflections show us 
plainly that the utterances of the Pope are to be re 
ceived as infallible definitions only under certain con 
ditions, and that these conditions have been exactly 
specified in the Vatican Council itself. 

Dr. Schulte, in presenting for our consideration nu 
merous Papal expressions and Papal doings which he 
himself regards as so many infallible utterances, has en 
abled us to see that, with one single exception,* the 
conditions which the Vatican Council has declared to 
be requisite for an infallible definition, are not to be 
found in these documents which he parades before us, 
and therefore that all the Papal expressions and Papal 
acts, therein spoken of, cannot, according to the Vati 
can definition, come into the class of infallible Papal 

This I consider that I have demonstrated, and I am 
compelled to say, that what Dr. Schulte really means 

* Part of the Bull Unam Sanctam. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 1 29 

by the. term pleas devised to quiet the conscience, is 
the true and essential meaning of the definition of the 
Vatican Council, and this is of itself sufficiently re 
markable. By using this term he refuses to allow the 
validity of those essential restrictions by which the In 
fallibility of the Pope is limited, as it is necessary it 
should be, in order that the true Catholic doctrine on 
faith and morals may be preserved in its purity. 

Such a proceeding on the part of a learned Catho 
lic professor must meet with the most decided con 
demnation of the whole Catholic Church. How can a 
man, who lays claim to the name of Catholic, venture 
to say of a definition of an Ecumenical Council, that its 
essential restrictions are mere pleas to quiet the con 
science ? 

31. As the first of these pleas to quiet the con 
science, Dr. Schulte brings forward the distinction 
which has been drawn between the Pope acting as a 
private person, but not as Pope, and that it is admitted 
that he may possibly, as a private person, have erred 
in commanding, or in directing by law, something which 
cannot be justified. 

Here I must remark first, that no one really has 
the folly to assert, as Dr. Schulte lays to the charge 
of the advocates of Papal Infallibility, that they say, 
The Pope may, as a private person, have commanded, 
or directed by law, something which cannot be justi 

The first step then in a controversy, in order to re 
lieve yourself of the burden of a proof, is to find out 
some nonsense, lay that nonsense on your adversary s 
shoulders as a target, and then discharge your weapons 

130 The True and the False 

at it ! What we really do say is, that the Pope may 
err as a private person, and as such may give utterance 
to his error (cf. above, No. 17 (8)); not that he can 
either command, or by law direct, anything to the 
Church as a private person/ 

Dr. Schulte proceeds further to say : * It is beyond 
all doubt that every proceeding which the Pope haa 
ever taken in hand, or which he now takes in hand, re 
lating to the province of his teaching office or to Church 
government, is really not the act of a private person, 
^r, but is the act of the Pope as Pope, and that the 
Pope acts as Pope, whether the act in question is an 
act done for the diocese of Rome or for some other dio 
cese, or for the whole Church. But this conclusion 
which he draws is by no means so certain as he assumes 
it to be. For the sake of brevity, I will but refer 
to one of the greatest authorities in the Catholic 
Church, viz. the learned Pope Benedict XIV., who 
asserts the very contrary, a fact which may at least 
be permitted to make Dr. Schulte s view somewhat 

* For instance, Pope Benedict XIV. says: Romanus Pontifex 
qui (according to Theodorus Studita) est omnium Capitum Caput, < 
atque Christi Ecclesiae Princeps, Moderator et Pastor, est etiam 
Patriarcha Occidentis, Primas Italiae, Archiepiscopus et Metropoli- I 
tanus Romanae Provinciae, atque Episcopus urbis Romae ; quod scite 
considerant Sirmondus, Morinus, Leo Allatius, Hallier, Natalis Alex 
ander, et passim alii. Non inde tamen, quod Romanus Pontifex 
insitam sibi habeat dignitatam et prxrogativam supremi Capitis 
totius Ecclesiae, consequitur, omnia, quae ab eo fiunt, fieri tanquam ab 
Ecclesiae Capite, siquidem aliquando solum gerit personam vel Prima- 
tis Italiae, vel Metropolitae, Romanae Provinciae, quandoque se tantum 
exhibet Episcopum urbis Romae, ea unice peragendo, quae cuilibel 
Episcopo in sua dioecesi peragendi jus est ; aliquando demum suam 

Infallibility of the Popes. 131 

This Pope says in his preface to his celebrated 
work, DC Synodo Dicecesand, published at the time when 
he actually was Pope, that * In this work he desires to 
define nothing in respect of that for which he does not 
adduce Papal definitions, even if he expresses his own 
view upon the subject (sententiam Nostram proponentes), 
just as his great predecessor, Innocent IV., expressed 
his own opinions only as a private person and scholar* 
in the commentary he published upon the Decretals, 
adding also that this was the view he wished to be 
generally taken of his commentary. Surely from this 
it is pretty clear that the distinction, which Dr. Schulte 
casts aside as mere words, has been so long known and 
is so well founded in the Church, that I may spare my 
self any further explanation of it. 

32. Dr. Schulte next brings forward the following 
proposition as his second instance of a plea devised 
merely to keep people s consciences quiet: * The 
Council decrees Infallibility to belong only to utter 
ances which have reference to doctrine, of faith, or 
morals, but that Infallibility has nothing to do with 
legislating or governing. 

In the somewhat lengthy discussion upon this pro 
position there is a regular torrent of repetitions of 

supremam explicat dignitatem, et tanquam totius Ecclesiae Prases, 
Moderator et Princeps illam exercet potestatem et jurisdictionem, qua 
non nisi ut Christ! in terris Vicarius potitur. Neque quod quis pro 
loco et tempore diversas induat personas, et modo una modo altera ex 
its utatur potestatibus, quibus diverso nomine praestat, res est adeo 
nova et inusitata, ut ab heterodoxis irrideri queat. P. Benedict 
XIV. De Synodo Dicecesand, lib. li. cap. i. Ferraris, 1760, pp. 29, 30. 

^ Opiniones suas quas tanquam privatus Doctor proposuerat. 
P. Benedict XIV. In Procemio, op. cit. p. ix. 

132 The True and the False 

propositions and assertions already brought forward 
in previous pages of his pamphlet, all of which have 
been examined one by one, and as I think sufficiently 
refuted. So I might content myself with referring 
my reader to what I have already said, since I must 
take care how I weary him by a repetition of what 
has been already sufficiently refuted. I think, how 
ever, it may be worth while just to extract the prin 
cipal propositions out of this part of Dr. Schulte s 
pamphlet, and to set them in their proper light, so far 
as there is anything new in them, which might pos 
sibly perplex and trouble some of the less observant of 
his readers. He has, he tells us, collected them all 
together in this part of his treatise, in order to show 
that the Catholic Church at the Vatican Council could 
not possibly define the Infallibility of the Pope only in 
that limited sense in which it did define it, viz. as hav 
ing reference only to doctrine respecting faith and 
morals (p. 53 of his pamphlet).* This new assertion 

* This is also the place to state Dr. Schulte s view, that the ex 
cathedra theory is a mere invention of the schools, and has no founda 
tion either in itself, and is utterly worthless in law. One cannot but 
be surprised at hearing a learned man speak so recklessly and con 
temptuously of the science oftheology. For the term ex cathedia 
by which it is meant that sometimes the Pope speaks ex cathedid and 
sometimes not, and that ex cnthedni utterances have quite a different 
import from those statements which are not ex cathedni is a con 
clusion arrived at by the science of theology ; and since the formula 
has been received by the Church, it has as much claim on our ac 
ceptance as is possessed by any older formula or expression, which 
although not in Scripture, and not in use in the first centuries, has 
nevertheless been selected by the Church, when making a solemn </e 
fide definition in later times, as the most appropriate term to desig 
nate a definition ds fide. Instances of this kind of formulas are well 
known to all theologians. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 133 

of his Dr. Schulte endeavours to prove out of Holy 
Scripture, and from the nature of the Primacy. 
Strange position for a man to claim for himself! He 
understands the nature of the Primacy better than 
the Primate himself and the 500 bishops. He says 
that in Holy Scripture there is not a word of any 
special teaching office of St. Peter, and he adds, the 
Vatican Council has not been able to appeal in its 
definition to any such passage. But however Dr. Schulte 
may deny this, the Council has appealed to such a 
passage, and that passage contains the words of our 
Lord to St. Peter, I have prayed for thee that thy 
faith fail not ; and do thou in turn one day strengthen 
thy brethren. * This passage is taken from St. Luke 
xxii. 32, and to this passage the Vatican Council ex 
pressly refers by quoting it verbatim in the definition. 

33. Again, Dr. Schulte asserts, It will not do, on 
the one hand, to base the Infallibility upon the Pri 
macy of the Roman Bishop, and at the same time, 
on the other hand, to exclude from the operation of 
Infallibility the giving of laws and all other Papal acts, 
except mere theoretical doctrinal definitions (p. 54). f 

(i.) Upon this I remark that, since the supreme 
power has various operations in the Church, God hath 
vouchsafed to its one most important operation a spe- 

* See Preface, conclusion, for the reason why Bishop Fessler 
adopted this translation. TRANSLATOR. 

\ We call our readers attention to this expression, mere theo 
retical doctrinal definitions. If Dr. Schulte means to say or imply 
that such theoretical acts are of no importance, he is greatly to be 
blamed. The faith of a Catholic is directed by such definitions of 
doctrine, and his life by his faith, Justus ex fide vivit. Rom. i. 17 ; 
Galat. iii. n ; Heb. x. 38. 

134 The True and the False 

cial grace. I call the teaching office the most im 
portant operation, because it is by teaching that faith 
comes, and because the right faith is the foundation of 
the whole work of salvation in man ; as also for this 
reason, because teaching is the guide, the nor ma, both 
as regards the sacraments, and as regards the giving of 
laws and governing. The truth of salvation, revealed 
by God and preserved from error, is the foundation of 
all the other operations which the Church exercises for 
the salvation of man. Herein lies the reason for the 
possibility and for the fitness of the gift of a special 
grace to the highest teaching power in the Church, 
viz. to exclude thereby all error from the doctrines of 
the Church. That this gift has actually been conferred, 
rests on the words of Christ as they are given us in 
Holy Writ, according to the declaration and tradition 
of the Holy Church. Thus, then, from this true doc 
trine disciplinary laws are deduced through the oper 
ation of man ; in accordance with this true doctrine 
the Church is governed ; and thus, in both discipline 
and government, we confidently hope and believe that 
the divine assistance is not wanting to the Pope. 

From this we see the wisdom of the Church s 
action, that on the one hand all her definitions of 
faith should be unalterable, and that, on the other 
hand, it should be lawful for bishops to make repre 
sentations as regards Papal disciplinary laws, even 
when they have been issued for the whole Church, - 
if, that is, they have reason to fear that such and 
such laws would have a prejudicial effect on their 
subjects in some way or other in order that special 
alterations, exceptions in behalf of particular countries 

Infallibility of the Popes. 135 

or regions, relaxations of penalties, &c., maybe brought 
into action.* 

Further, it is admitted that these laws may be en 
tirely set aside, under certain conditions, after a proper 
length of time has elapsed, by a legitimate contrary 
custom. f How and why on certain occasions even the 
formal revocation or partial modification of laws passed 
in former times can be effected by Popes themselves, 
has already been sho wn above in a striking example 
(No. 22, p. 101)4 

(2.) Dr. Schulte endeavours to help on his cause by 
saying that several of the Papal constitutions which he 
has brought forward under the head of Papal doc 
trinal propositions have certainly reference to the faith, 
as for instance, Laws against heretics refer to the 
propagation of the faith (p. 57 of his pamphlet), or, as 
he says in another place (p. 59), a number of such 
constitutions belong exclusively to the faith. This 
assertion, however, rests on a mere play of words. Of 
course, it may be said, in a certain sense, penal enact 
ments and condemnations of heretics do refer to the 
faith, because they punish a lapse from the faith. But 

*So Pope Benedict XIV. De Synodo Diceces. lib. ix. c. viii. nn. I 
and 3, where he speaks in quite a different manner on the one hand 
De Pontificiis Constitutionibus, qusc ad fideni pertinent, cum in his 
irreformabile sit Romani Pontificis judicium from what he does on 
the other, De Constitutionibus ad disciplinam pertinentibus, in 
respect of which last he expressly concedes the right of bishops to 
make representation about them, in order to obtain alterations. 

f P. Benedict XIV. De Synod. Dicecesand, lib. xiii. cap. v. nn. 4-5. 

t Any one who is well acquainted with Papal Bulls of the sixteenth 
and seventeenth centuries will recall a great number of examples of 
this sort. 

136 The True and the False 

the definition of faith of the Vatican Council says ex 
pressly Infallibility is promised to the Pope if he de 
fines a dogma on faith or morals (doctrinam de fide vel 
moribus definif). Who does not see that it is quite 
a different thing for the Pope to pronounce a defini 
tion upon a Doctrine of the Church on faith or morals, 
and to direct or apply this or that means in order to 
protect people from falling away from the Catholic 
faith, or to bring back or punish those who have fallen 
from it ? The first belongs to the teaching office, the 
latter to jurisdiction. 

(3.) Hereupon Dr. Schulte tries -another shift ; he 
says, < It is from these Papal laws and acts of Papal 
governments that we can learn the principles upon 
which the Popes have acted, as they have taken them 
for granted in making their laws and when acting as 
rulers of the Church ; thus these laws and acts are 
after all real definitions on Church doctrine. To this 
I answer, granting even that we can draw more or less 
certain conclusions out of Papal laws and acts of Papal 
governments as to the principles to which such laws 
owe their origin, yet we are by no means justified in 
viewing these principles so inferred, as the definitions 
on faith and morals of which the Vatican Council is 
speaking in its definition on Infallibility. 

By that definition it was clearly meant to make 
definitions of the Pope ex cathedra as plainly and as 
readily recognisable as possible ; whereas according to 
the artificial and unreal interpretation of Dr. Schulte 
a person would have to wade though an interminable 
field of endless controversies and contradictory asser 
tions in order to attain, by the road along which Dr. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 137 

Schulte conducts him, to the knowledge of what doc 
trine has been defined by the Church de fide ct moribits. 
Why, Dr. Schulte enumerates above a hundred pro 
positions, all the hundred, he says, dogmatic utter 
ances, out of those Bulls alone which he quotes. 
Surely this fact of itself ought to have shown him, nay, 
must have shown him, and made him say to himself, 
The Pope and the bishops never could by any possi 
bility have meant or willed such an absurdity. 

Again, the Papal laws do not always rest their 
motivum or principle on divine teaching alone, but not 
unfrequently on a human view of the Jus publicum, as 
it was regarded in the period in which they were passed, 
or after thorough consideration of the measures which, 
according to human wisdom, were the best that could 
be adopted. We can easily see what a wild-goose chase 
we should be led if, every one for himself, we had to 
hunt up the supposed motives for ever so many Papal 
laws, in order to make out of them so many Papal 
infallible and unalterable definitions of faith ! 

(4.) In close connection with the foregoing is Dr. 
Schulte s further assertion that * no one of the consti 
tutions brought forward by him has in view mere eccle 
siastical discipline, because he designedly omits all such 
mere matters of discipline. 

Perhaps Dr. Schulte really believes this is the case. 
But his assertion, that there is no one of these consti 
tutions which has in view mere ecclesiastical discipline, 
is a statement utterly without foundation. If, accord 
ing to the plain statement of the definition of the Vati 
can Council, w r e are bound to hold that infallible defi 
nitions of faith are unalterable, and if, on the other 

138 The True and the False 

side, we have before our eyes the fact that Dr. Schulte s 
Papal constitutions are, with one exception, alterable, 
and, indeed, have in time past, been either altogether 
revoked, or have had important modifications made in 
them by other Papal constitutions, then it is as clear as 
day, that his assertion is utterly without foundation. 
Are we to suppose that the Bull for the organisation 
of the College of Cardinals belongs not to a mere disci 
plinary law of the Church, but really constitutes a dog 
ma of faith or morals ? 

It may serve as a further proof how utterly void of 
foundation this assertion is, that among these constitu 
tions there are several which pronounce excommunica 
tion upon different persons. Now the Council of Trent 
expressly says* that excommunication is the nerve of 
the Church s discipline/ Then, if this be so. bulls of 
excommunication rr\ust belong to the discipline of the 

(5.) Hereupon Dr. Schulte tries to prove that in the 
Church s laws we find the particular formulas adopted 
which the definition of the Vatican Council required 
for an infallible definition. He brings all sorts of rea 
sons for this, none of them good reasons, and many of 
them have been already disposed of. Still there are 
some which require a more careful treatment. 

When he says, that the formulation requisite for a 
definition of faith really exists whenever the constitu 
tions of the Pope are directed generally to the whole 
Church, or * when they are sent out by virtue of his 

* Canones et Decreta Condi. Trident. , sessio 25, c. iii. De Reformat. 
Compare the Decretals of Pope Gregory IX., cap. v. De Consuetu- 
dinibus (i. 4). 

Infallibility of the Popes. 139 

supreme apostolical power, I maintain it in no way 
foLows from this that these constitutions, by reason of 
these expressions, are definitions of faith. The Pope 
has the supreme authority in the Church even in other 
respects besides matters of faith and morals ; if accord 
ingly he makes use of the supreme authority which he 
possesses over other provinces of that power which he 
holds in the Church, even towards the whole Church, 
still, this is not such a case as the definition of the Va 
tican Council had in view ; no, not even if the consti 
tution is directed to the whole Church, and is issued by 
virtue of the supreme apostolical power. 

When Dr. Schulte lays such special weight upon the 
introduction to these constitutions, because, as he says, 
It is from these that we may gather the doctrine of 
the Popes, I must positively declare that Popes never 
do smuggle their definitions of doctrine in this under 
hand way into the introduction of this or that Bull (a 
Bull, too, which perhaps does not treat of faith or 
morals), in such a manner that such a supposed defini 
tion may run the risk of remaining for centuries unno 
ticed and unacknowledged.* 

* Dr. Schulte really attributes to the Popes this absurd conduct, 
saying, It is to be regretted that people have not attended to the 
introductions to Bulls, principally, I suppose, on account of their 
lengthiness. This is a great mistake ; as they are often the quintes 
sence of the Bull. And yet this introduction itself shows that canon 
ists up to this have not known the proper meaning of the Cardinals. 
Even Phillipps, &c. (p. 36 of his Pamphlet). The Bull of which 
Dr. Schulte is here speaking is now nearly 300 years old, and it has 
been the good fortune of Dr. Schulte to discover a most important 
definition in its introduction, which up to this time has escaped the 
notice of all canonists. And this precious discovery is a definition 

140 The True and the False 

Finally, when Dr. Schulte denies that the word dc- 
fimrc, to define which is of such special weight in 
the Vatican Council is not a technical expression 
having a special reference to definitions of faith, and 
strictly confined to them, I must most decidedly deny 
that assertion. When he says the Council of Trent 
has not made use of this word to designate its defi- 


nitions of faith, I answer: Is the Council of Trent 
the only general council ? Are there not other coun 
cils ? Let him examine them. He will then be able 
to convince himself that these ancient councils did com 
monly designate a definition of faith as dcfinitio fidci or 
dcfinitio, and used the word dcfinirc without any other 
addition. So did the General Council of Chalcedon ; 
so did the Third Council of Constantinople ; so did the 
Second Council of Nicaea.* To say nothing of other 
councils, it ought to be enough to settle the matter to 
mention only the celebrated dcfinitio of the Council of 
Florence, in which the de fide proposition on the pri 
macy of the Roman Pontiff and his supreme teaching 
power in the Church was defined with the consent of 
the Greeks. )* Perhaps Dr. Schulte may find reason to 
soften his own crabbed assertion, Dcfiiiire is not a 
technical word in the Church s language in deciding a 

* Condi. Chalcedon. act. v. and vi. in Harduin s Acta Condi, t. ii. 
col. 451, 455, 466 ; Condi. Constpl. III., Act xviii. (Harduin, 1. c. t. iii. 
col. 1394, 1395, I399> 1455) I Condi. NiccBii. //., Act vii. and viii. (Har 
duin 1. c. t. iv. col. 451, 455, 483, 486). 

f See Defmitio S. QLcumenica Synodi Florentine, in Harduin, 1. c. 
t. ix. col. 419 ; and in the same Council Definimus S. Apostolicam Se- 
dem ct Romanum Pontificem, &c. (ibid. col. 423). we may read the same 
words in cap. iii. of the Constltutio Dogtnatica Coi:cilii Vciticani of July 
18, 1870. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 141 

doctiine ; to make capital out of it, is as false in fact as 
it is absurd in theory, if he will but peruse the acts 
of the councils I have mentioned, to say nothing of 
the use of the word in the science of theology and in 
the celebrated Papal definition de fide in our own 

(6.) Again, Dr. Schulte asserts that * any one may 
see for certain from the addition of the anathema 

* See the Dogmatic Bull of Pius IX., Ineffabilis Deus of Dec. 8, 
1854 In which is defined the Immaculate Conception of the most 
holy Virgin Mary, with the words : Auctoritate declaramus, pronun- 
ciamus et DEFINIMUS doctrinam/ &c. 

NOTE. The editor of the French translation here says, much to 
the purpose : In writing the above lines Mgr. Fessler, whose theolo 
gical and historical erudition is so complete and so trustworthy, has 
failed to recall to mind several passages even more decisive against 
M. Schulte than those which he has quoted. M. Schulte asserts that 
this word " definjre " has not been employed even once by the Council 
of Trent as a technical expression applicable to fix once for all a dog 
ma. Instead of not being employed at all, it is, to our certain know 
ledge, employed at least six times ; session 13 and 21, at the end of 
the prooemium, " definitum ;" session 14 in the prooemium, " defini- 
tionem ;" session 25 and last, at the end, twice, " definita." Here is 
one of these passages: Sacrosancta Synodus . . . omnibus Christi 
fidelibus interdicit, ne postea de sanctissirmc eucharistiaj sacramento 
aliter credere, docere et praedicare audeant, quam ut est hoc pnesenti 
decreto declaratum et definitum (Sess. 13 procem.). In another pas 
sage, session 14, procem., the Council sets forth how important it is 
to give the sacrament of Penance pleniorem definitionem? In the 
decree De Recipiendis et Obsewandis Decretis Cottcilii, at the end of the 
twenty-fifth and last session, the Council declares that it has had a 
special case, ut pnecipuous haereticorum nostri temporis errores 
damnaret et anathematizaret ; veramque et Catholicam doctrinam 
traderet et doceret, prout damnavit anathematizavit et definivit It 
cannot then be said that in these passages of the Council of Trent the 
word definire is not used as a technical expression to fix a dogma 
once for all. TRANSLATOR. 

142 The True and the False 

whether a constitution of a Pope is a law or a doc 
trine, or both combined/ This, however, is quite un 
tenable, because the * anathema/ or, in other words, 
the penalty of excommunication, is pronounced for 
two reasons, either for deliberate unbelief in the face 
of a solemnly expressed and defined doctrine on faith 
or morals, or for disobedience to the Church s injunc 
tions on some other matter. If the sincere recognition 
of a dogmatic proposition is demanded under the 
threat of an anathema/ then it is to be regarded as a 
sign of a definition. But if the threat of excommuni- 


cation is annexed to a mere disciplinary law issued by 
the Pope, then submission, true obedience, is required 
in virtue of that power of jurisdiction which the Pope 
possesses in the Church.* This I will make plain by 
an example with which Dr. Schulte himself provides 
us. Alexander VI. drew a line in the ocean from the 
North Pole, and assigned to King Ferdinand and 
Queen Isabella of Spain all the continent and all the 
islands to the west of this imaginary line. He did this 
under the threat of excommunication against all those 

* In another place Dr. Schulte makes another assertion, resting, 
as he says, upon Papal ex catJiedrd declarations, Acts purely of juris 
diction have a dogmatic character (p. 55 of his work). This he en 
deavours to prove from the excommunication attached. But, I ask 
what does he mean by the expression have a dogmatic character ? 
This is one of those vague expressions neither theological nor canon- 
istic, the meaning of which has to be determined before it can be in 
telligible. It does not occur in any one of the passages which he quotes 
in proof of his assertion ; and Dr. Schulte s conversion of the con 
demned propositions into positive de fide definitions and Papal utter 
ances has thus had the unfortunate result of preventing him from ever 
seeing their real meaning. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 143 

who should endeavour to encroach upon those coun 
tries without their permission.* Well, it is here quite 
clear that, in order not to fall under this excommuni 
cation, it was enough to keep your distance from the 
lands which the Pope had thus assigned : this most 
assuredly was no definition of faith. 

(7.) I cannot conclude these remarks upon the 
particular assertions in this portion of Dr. Schulte s 
work without a general remark on the extraordinary 
way in which, in this Pamphlet, he assails the defini 
tion of the Vatican Council on the Infallible teaching 
office of the Roman Pontiff. He gives out that he is 
attacking one thing; but all the while he is really 
attacking something else. He professes to be assail 
ing the definition of the Vatican Council ; but in 
reality he is only assailing a theological opinion of the 
schools, which was in existence long before the Vatican 
Council, and which is neither confirmed nor rejected 
by the definition of the Council, but remains just what 
it was before. However, even amongst those theo 
logians who defended the thesis that the Infallibility 
of the Church extended even to general laws of the 
Church upon matters of discipline, deer eta disciplines^ 
there never was any one who, as Dr. Schulte sup 
poses, went so far as to assert that every expression in 
the laws issued by the Pope, even when merely intro 
ductory, a declaration of the intention of punishing, 
the words of the judgments, the penal sentences 
passed, nay, even the motives leading to the issuing of 
such laws, must all be looked upon as infallible utter- 
mces of the Pope ex cathedra. Dr. Schulte stands 

* Bullar. Rom. ed. cit. tit. iii. p. iii. pp. 234-235. 

144 The True and the False 

alone in this extravagant assertion. The Vatican 
Council never taught this, nor did the science of theo 
logy ever teach it. Dr. Schulte assails what never 
existed save in his own imagination. 

34. And now I come to the last of what he calls 
our evasions/ He feels himself obliged to call it a 
mere evasion to say that no conclusion can be drawn 
from the particular acts or dealings of Popes as to what 
is and is not the doctrine of the Church. Supposing 
Popes have even deposed sovereigns, given away na 
tions and countries, dissolved subjects from their sol 
emn oaths of allegiance, &c., it does not follow that 
these transactions were doctrines of the Church, or that 
they rest upon an unalterable infallible definition. 
This, too, he adds, was what in former times I have 
always myself asserted, believed, and taught ; as I can 
prove any moment by several quotations from my ear 
lier works, and the expressions I made use of, as the 
occasion presented itself, in reviews. But since the 
i8th of July, 1870, there has remained for me and for 
everybody the alternative : This definition of chapter 
iv. (and iii.) of the Vatican Council, the so-called Con- 
stitutio dogmatica dc Ecclesia, is not to be recognized as 
the conclusion of a truly Ecumenical Council ; or I must 
also acknowledge as unalterable doctrine of the Church 
those principles which the Popes have either directl} 
enunciated, or which present themselves to us witl 
logical cogency as the irresistible presumptions createc 
by their proceedings in the government of the Church 
(p. 62 of Dr. Schulte s work). 

There is more than one thing to answer here Firs 
and foremost I will give Dr. Schulte the consoling as 

Infallibility of the Popes. 145 

snrance that whatever he says he formerly asserted, 
believed, and taught about the deposition of sovereigns, 
he may now, after the Vatican definition, as far as that 
is concerned, go on asserting, believing, and teaching.* 
In saying this perhaps I expose myself to the danger 
of being classed with those good people whom he de 
signates as * mere children/ the ignorant multitude, 
&c., p. 63 ; but for ail that I must run this risk, and am 
unable, in spite of my danger, to refrain from stating 
this conviction. But then I must go on to say that I 
most emphatically decline the alternative he has offered 
me in such decisive language. I decline it as altogether 
unsound ; and I confidently assert the Vatican Council 

* On July 20, 1871, after the publication of Bishop Fessler s pam 
phlet, Pope Pius IX. received a deputation of the Academy of the 
Catholic religion. He exhorted its members to do their best to refute 
with all possible care the statements of those who made it their busi 
ness to misconstrue the meaning of the Infallibility of the Pope, de 
claring it to be a pernicious error, to represent the Infallibility as com 
prising in itself the right to dethrone sovereigns, and release their 
subjects from their oath of allegiance. This right, the Pope said, 
has, indeed, been exercised by Popes in extreme cases, but the right 
has absolutely nothing in common with Papal Infallibility. It was a 
result of the Jus publicnm then in force by the consent of Christian 
nations, who recognized in the Pope the supreme judge of Christen 
dom, and constituted him judge over princes and peoples even in tem 
poral matters. The present situation is quite different. Nothing but 
bad faith could confound things so different and ages so dissimilar; 
as if an infallible judgment delivered upon some revealed truth had 
any analogy with a prerogative which the Popes, solicited by the 
desire of the people, have had to exercise when the public weal 
demanded it! Such statements are nothing but a mere pretext to 
excite princes against the Church. The Pope s approbation of the 
Pastoral Instruction of the Swiss Bishops, in which this declaration 
of his is referred to, renders its authenticity indubitable, FRENCH 

146 The True and the False 

is undoubtedly a truly Ecumenical Council, and its 
definition is to be accepted and acknowledged by 
every Catholic as the definition of an Ecumenical Coun 
cil ; and yet that it by no means follows (as Dr. Schulte 
says) that we are obliged to acknowledge as unaltera 
ble Catholic doctrine those principles which the Popes 
have either directly enunciated, or which present them 
selves to us with logical cogency as the irresistible pre 
sumptions created by their proceedings in the govern 
ment of the Church ; but that the only thing which 
does follow from receiving the Vatican definition is,- 
that everybody must accept as a doctrine of the Church s 
faith and morals whatsoever the Pope in the exercise 
of his supreme teaching office declares and defines 
(definit] to be held by the Universal Church as doctrine 
of faith and morals.* 

If. however, Dr. Schulte is determined to stand by 
his assertion, that from the irresistible presumptions 
created by acts in the government of the Church, prin 
ciples must be inferred which must themselves be re 
garded as the doctrine of the Church, then I would call 
his attention to the fact that General Councils too have 
deposed sovereigns and released subjects from their 
allegiance ; as for instance the first General Council of 

* Accordingly not all, by a great deal, that the Pope has, it may 
be, even directly expressed, as Dr. Schulte says, still less what can be 
gathered indirectly from acts of ecclesiastical government, can be 
considered as affording an irresistible presumption. The Popes ofic-u 
express or infer principles which are acknowledged in the Juspnblicum 
of the age in which they lived, when those principles were by no means 
doctrines de fide et moribus. In Ballerini (De vi et ratione Roman Pon- 
tificis, c. xv. x. n. 38 and 41) we may find an exposition of this as 
complete as it is instructive. 

Infallibility of the Popes. 147 

Lyons, in the year 1245.* Thus the point of his proof 
is directed not against Popes, but against the Universal 
Church. Among other reasons for his assertion that 
it is a mere evasion to say the* Vatican definition of the 
Infallible teaching office of the Roman Pontiff has no 
reference to his proceedings in the government of the 
Church, but only to his definitions of doctrine, Dr. 
Schulte, besides repetitions of what he has already 
said, mentions one which I cannot pass over in silence. 
He says, * The " clausula form into which the In 
fallibility is thrown is a thoroughly arbitrary proceed 
ing ; and he adds in confirmation of this sentiment, 
* Where has Christ bound up His words in clauses and 
formulas ? This is plainly to give the Church a 
downright slap in the face, and to condemn all General 
Councils from Nicaea to Trent. For they have one 
and all, as often as they make a definition on faith or 
morals, expressed it in the most definite terms (what 
Dr. Schulte calls * clauses and * formulas ), in order to 
obviate, as far as possible, .all error, doubt, and mis 
understanding. It was precisely because the Vatican 
Council wished to prevent, as well as it could, er 
roneous interpretations of its definition, that it declared 
in the simplest and most easily intelligible words, in 
what kind of operations, and under what conditions, 
the Pope was to be looked upon as Infallible. It is 
sheer perversity to assail a definition of the Church 
which precisely defines and limits its subject matter, 
in order to remove all occasion of giving unfounded 
anxieties, misapprehensions, and misapplications, which 
might tend to disturb the conscience, simply because 

* Harduin, Acta Condi, t. vii. col. 385, 386. 

148 The True and the False 

of its very definite ness ; to reject its putting its defini 
tions into clauses, and to talk of its being arbitrary ; 
and then afterwards, rejecting its own prescribed limit 
ations and doing violence to its plain language and 
its true signification, to extend the definition perversely 
in a most unwarrantable manner to provinces with 
which it has nothing whatever to do ; and all this to 
the great disturbance of men s minds, and to the injury 
of the Church. 

Infallibility of tkc Popes. 149 



35. UNDER this title Dr. Schulte collects together as 
proven (Ger. bewieseti), to use his own word, all that he 
has gathered together out of different rescripts and pro 
ceedings of Popes, and in his own thirteen propositions, 
to be infallible and unalterable Catholic doctrine, which 
every one is bound to accept, if he accepts as a de fide 
proposition the definition of the Vatican Council on the 
Infallible teaching office of the Roman. Pontiff. 

I have proved, in sections 15-27 of my answer to 
him on each of his thirteen propositions, that, upon the 
principle laid down in the definition of the Vatican 
Council * on the Infallible teaching office of the Roman 
Pontiff, they are not to be regarded as Catholic doctrine 
de fide, that they are not Papal utterances ex cathedrd, 
and accordingly are not unalterable. 

I had shown previously (section 13), that the other 
assertion which he brought in connection with his thir 
teen propositions, that he had no warrant whatever for 
saying that it had been declared ex cathedrd that 
Popes have never overstepped the limits of their powers ; 
that they have never erred in their canons and constitu 
tions; that their constitutions rest, as it were, upon Di 
vine inspiration ; for in reality no Pope ever has de 
clared this ex cathedrd, nor set it forth as a definition de 

150 T/tc True and the False 

fide. Having proved this, the edifice of consequences, 
built by Dr. Schulte upon his worthless foundation, 
falls to the ground. 

Still I must select one proposition, introduced by 
him as a corollary, which should not remain unnoticed. 
He says, The limitation of the omnipote*K:e of the 
Topes upon earth rests merely with their own will. 
This is a proposition which may well shock anybody. 
But happily, first and foremost, it is altogether wrong 
to speak of a Pope s omnipotence. The Pope has from 
Christ, in the person of St. Peter, received the fulness 
of power,* which means, as the Ecumenical Council of 
Florence accurately explained, the full power to feed 
the whole Church, to lead and to rule it. If people 
choose to call this Papal omnipotence, then they will 
be really ousting an expression which has- its own per 
fect justification, and its right meaning in the language 
of the Church, and foisting into its place a newly-coined 
expression, Papal omnipotence. This is a term which 
the language of the Church has never used of Popes, 
which gives a wholly erroneous impression, and which 
in unlearned people would be apt to awaken the most 
strange apprehensions. Much more will this be the 
case when, as Dr. Schulte adds, this Papal omnipotence 
is supposed to have no restriction but the will of the 
Pope. All this is a monstrous untruth. The Papal 
power, not Papal omnipotence, has its restrictions in 
the laws of God, and in the will of God, not in the will 
of the Pope.f 

* Plenitude potestatis. 

\ I would here direct Dr. Schulte s attention to Walter s excellent 
exposition in his Ecclesiastical Law, sec. 126 (thirteenth edition), on 

Infallibility of the Popes. 1 5 i 

All, then, which Dr. Schulte asserts on this ground, 
all that he asserts of the power of the Pope against 
heretics, and of the obligation of Catholics to obey the 
Pope, and also of the binding power of excommunica 
tion, is, so far as the Vatican definition is concerned, 
left just where it was before. 

When, then, he draws his conclusion from such un 
warrantable* assumptions that no non- Catholic sover 
eign in his position as ruler is secure of his throne ; no 
government carried on by those who are not Catholics 
is secure of its authority ; no non-Catholic is secure of 
his life, or his freedom, or his honour, or his property; 
and what is more, under certain circumstances, no Ca 
tholic ruler, no government carried on even by Catho 
lics, no individual Catholic, is a whit more secure, 
then I must be pardoned for saying that all these as 
sertions are as utterly ludicrous as they are untrue (see 
no. 28-9). Had not he better have said outright, No- 
bociy is now safe from the Pope ? Any true Catholic, 
who, according to the true old Catholic doctrine, knows 
that the Pope is the pastor appointed by God over all 
the faithful, that he is their father and their teacher, 
will never believe a man is now a whit the less safe 
from the Pope. 

Less safe, forsooth ! Why ? Because an express 
assurance has now been given him that the Pope, as 
teacher of all Christians, cannot err or lead others into 

1 The Pope s power not arbitrary and unlimited. With this, however, 
a canonist ought to be already acquainted ; and perhaps Dr. Schulte 
will answer, That is all valueless now since the Infallibility declara- 
But what is there said is just as tnje now as it was before. 

152 Tkc True and the False 

error in definitions which he makes for all the Church 
upon faith or morals ! 

It is indeed very probable that those who are not 
Catholics, and who on that account are, through want 
of knowledge, the easier led astray and bewildered, will 
be disturbed by such a spectre as Dr. Schulte -has 
evoked, when told that this is the result of modern 
Catholic teaching. In behalf of all such persons I 
make this express declaration : that all rulers and gov 
ernments and subjects, Catholic and non-Catholic, are, 
since the Vatican definition of Infallibility, just as safe 
in their persons, in their life, in their freedom, honour, 
and possessions as they were before. Dr. Schulte says 
the contrary ; but the facts which he alleges do not be 
long to the province of Infallibility, and so they make 
nothing for his assertion. * Crying " wolf! is a poor 
joke/ is an old proverb which might here be very pro 
perly applied. 

In conclusion, Dr. Schulte directs the* State to be 
sure to take stringent measures to protect itself from 
the Pope. Such measures will either be pointed 
against the Pope or else against us Catholics. I 
should be surprised indeed if any statesman should 
resolve, as Dr. Schulte suggests, to require the Pope 
to make some contradictory declaration in respect of 
his Infallibility ; if he were to do so, he would have 
nobody to blame but himself for this exhibition of 
folly, and few people like to make fools of themselves. 
And I should also doubt if any statesman would ven 
ture to require Catholics to take an oath, or make a 
solemn declaration, in respect of the Infallibility of the 
Pope, since experienced politicians know well how 

Infallibility of the Popes. 153 

dangerous it is to meddle with freedom of faith and 
conscience, especially in countries where full freedom 
of faith and conscience is secured to all alike. 

Wise statesmen do not forget the lessons given by 
the facts of the present time. Let any man look at 
the events which have happened in Europe since July 
1 8th, 1870, down to December last, and ask himself 
what steps the Popes of the Middle Ages, whose 
spectres Dr. Schulte has conjured up from their graves 
to terrify the children of modern times, would have 
taken in the face of such events in all countries, 
especially in France ? And what has Pius IX. done? 
He has but used gentle, fatherly, tender-hearted words 
full of Christian love and humanity towards France* 
and towards King William of Prussia. 

36. A real statesman, looking with deeper glance 
into the great questions of the present and of the past, 
whose emblem is not the staff of the policeman sur 
mounting the fasces of authority, will entertain very 
different thoughts. He will, if I mistake not, be dis- 

* The Archbishop of Tours, whom the Pope intrusted with the 
mission to intervene withtFraruce in behalf of peace, wrote an excel 
lent letter on the subject to- the French Government. The powers 
of Europe, he said, in times long past, times which formed Chris 
tendom to be what it afterwards became, were wont to appeal to the 
Pope in their contests with each other to act as their umpire ; and 
many a time the intervention of the Pope has brought peace and wel 
fare to their people. The Holy Father does not now complain that 
people have ceased to take him to be their arbitrator. He does but 
assume for himself the liberty to sigh over our miseries, and the right 
to entreat for the life of his children. Happy am I indeed if my 
mission to you, a mission which I esteem the honor of my life, were 
destined to give effect to the hopes of the Head of the Church, which 
are so fully in accord with the feelings of the whole of Europe. 

154 The True and the False 

posed to think that it well becomes a religion revealed 
by God, a Church founded by God, to have an organ 
by means of which, according to the will of God, and 
through God s special assistance, the Divine doctrine 
may ever be preserved unfalsified, without admixture 
of any human error. 

He will consider that since from its origin for all 
time the Infallibility of the Catholic Church in respect 
of faith and morals is secured, it is merely a question for 
the Church to judge of for herself, whether, according 
to the tradition of the Christian faith, preserved from 
the beginning, the Pope and the Bishops, or whether 
the Pope without the Bishops, possessed this gift of In 
fallibility. ;>-,,; . .. 

He will consider that oppression of the conscience 
of the Catholic population in matters of faith through 
the imposition of an oath or a solemn declaration will 
be always and everywhere regarded as a kind of perse 
cution, as was the case in England and Ireland, where 
this practice was for some time adopted, but where it 
has been now discontinued. 

He will consider that it ill becomes a true liberal- 
minded statesman to establish such a persecution, 
especially when measures of that sort are adopted 
merely in the distant prospect of a barely possible dan 

He will consider that the steps the Pope has 
actually taken, and his whole conduct in the last half 
year (1870) that has passed since the definition was pro 
nounced, have not only given no real ground for alarm 
to Governments or to our brethren who are separated 
from the Catholic Church, but on the contrary have 

Infallibility of the Popes. 1 5 5 

guaranteed as far as was possible their most perfect 

I conclude with the earnest desire that what I have 
here written in the cause of Truth may in all it con 
tains serve that same Truth, and that in all who may 
read it it may advance the knowledge of the Truth. 

E X 

ACTS OF POPES. Simple acts of Popes, no. 14 (2), p. 79 ; acts 
of their ecclesiastical government, no. 14 (4), p. 79 ; as for 
instance Concordats, p. 92 ; what is the bearing of Papal 
Infallibility upon all such acts? no. 18, end, p. 97 ; whe 
ther the principles supposed to be implied in the ecclesi 
astical government of the Popes are infallible definitions? 
p. 32; acts of Popes brought forward by Dr. Schulte, and 
examined by Bp. Fessler depositions of sovereigns, 
donations of countries, penal sentences, etc., no. 17 (2), 
pp. 85, 86, 87 ; what we ought to think of such acts con 
sidered in themselves ? note, p. 86. 

ANATHEMA. Whether the fact of a Papal constitution 
being accompanied by an anathema, or, in other words, 
by a sentence of excommunication, shows decisively, or 
not, that the constitution is a .dogmatic definition? no. 
33 (6), end, p 142, cf. p. 135. 

APOSTOLICAL AUTHORITY. Are all Papal constitutions 
which have been made in virtue of their supreme apos 
tolical authority definitions ex cathedra f p. 97, cf. p. 138. 

Ballerini, p. 56, pp. 59, 69, notes. 
Bellarmine, p. 62, text, and p. 69, note. 
Benedict XIV., as private Doctor, pp. 130, 131, 135, notes. 
Canus, Melchior, p. 60, note. 
Guibert, Mgr., p. 153, note. 
Hurter, Frederick, pp. 122, 123. 
Melchers, Mgr., p. 33. 
Perrone, p. 56, note. 
Savigny, De, p. 120, note. 

By French Translator : 
Swiss Bishops, pp. 76, 77, notes. 
Trent, Council of, pp. 141, 142, note. 




BISHOPS. Whether the Bull of Sixtus V. and the third 
Chapter of the Vatican Council have taken from the 
Bishops any part of their former rights and dignities? 

P- 95- 

BRIEFS OF POPES. Multiplies inter of Pius IX., is it ex 
cathedra? p. 72, and preface, p. 24, cf. p. 75, note. 

BULLS. Are we to look for dogmatic definitions in the in 
troduction to Papal Bulls? p. 139 and note ; a Bull ad 
dressed to the whole Church ,and signed by all the Car 
dinals, is it an infallible dogmatic definition? p. 89, cf. 
p. 138. 

BULLS quoted by Bishop Fessler : 

Quia Fridericus . 
Cunt adversus 
Ad Apostolica; 
Ad extirpanda 
Unam sanctum 

Romanus Pontifex 
Inter sollicitudines 
Divina disponente 
Pastor ccternus 
Exsurge Domine . 

Ejus qui 

Cum Redemptor . 
Cum quorundatn . 
Cum ex Apostolatus 

Regnans in excelsis 
Postqnam vcrus . 
Zelo domus Dei . 
Auctorem fidei . 
Apostolicce Sedis mode- 

rationi . 
In coma Domini 

. 1239, Gregory IX., p. 86. 
, 1243, Innocent IV., p. in. 
, 1245, same Pope, p. 86. 
. 1252, same Pope, p. iir. 

1302, Boniface VIII., p. 81 and fol 

1454, Nicholas V., p. 96. 

1515, Leo X., p. 100. 

1516, same Pope, p, 92. 
1516, same Pope, p. 101. 

1520, same Pope, p. 70, cf. pp. 72, 


1535, Paul III., p. 87. 
1538, same Pope, p. 87. 
1555, Paul IV., p. 112. 
1 559, same Pope, p. 88, and Preface, 

pp. 20-22. 

1570, Pius V., p. 87. 
1586, Sixtus V., p. 95. 
1648, Innocent X., p. 104. 
1794, Pius VI., p. 107. 

1869, Pius IX., pp. 103, 104. 
pp. no, 143. 

Index. 159 


CHURCH (UNIVERSAL). Whether it follows that a constitu 
tion is ex cathedra from being addressed to the universal 
Church? p. 138, and p. 88, note. 

COUNCIL OF THE VATICAN. Examination of different facts 
relative to the Council of the Vatican, pp. 27, 28; text 
of the chapter on the infallible teaching office of the Ro 
man Pontiff, p. 46; explanations of this chapter, p. 55. 

CONDEMNATION OF BOOKS. Is a Papal decree condemn 
ing a bad book an infallible decision ? p. 72. 

DEFINIRE. Reflections on this word as a technical theo 
logical expression, pp. 135, 140, 141, and note. 

DEFINITIONS OF THE FAITH. Whether definitions of the 
faith require to be published in any special form, in order 
to bind the conscience ? p. 34. 

DEFINITION EX CATHEDRA. Explanation of this term, p. 
22 (i) ; by what notes a definition ex cathedra can be 
known, p. 65, cf. p. 84, no. 16, end ; whether it follows 
from a Papal constitution being addressed to the univer 
sal Church, or promulgated by virtue of the Pope s 
supreme apostolical authority, that it must, on that ac 
count, be regarded as a definition ex cathedra? p. 138, 
cf. 88, note ; to what matters an ex cathedra definition ex 
tends ? p. 67 ; whether all that is found in a dogmatic 
Decree or Bull as, for instance, the introductions and 
preambles are to be regarded as definitions ex cathedra? 
p. 59 ; are there a great or a small number of definitions 
ex cathedra f p. 67. See also the heads INSPIRATION 

DEPOSITION OF PRINCES. Whether the rights which 
Popes have exercised in the Middle Ages of deposing 
princes has anything in common with Papal Infallibility ? 
p. 145 and note ; whether (Ecumenical Councils have 
ever exercised the right of deposing princes? p. 146. 

DISCIPLINE. Whether ecclesiastical discipline belongs to 
the domains of Infallibility ? pp. 58, 79, 134; whether dis 
ciplinary laws are unalterable ? pp. 134-136. 


1 60 Index. 

GOSPEL. Whether definitions ex cathedra can be likened t< 
the HOLY GOSPEL? p. 95. 


HERETICS. What conclusion is to be drawn as to a Papa 
declaration whereby a doctrine has been declared here 
tical ? p. 84; in what sense it is possible to admit ir 
theory that a Pope may be heretical ? p. 90; the differen 
position the Church has assumed externally toward; 
heretics at different epochs of her existence, pp. 122-126 
whether the penal laws against heretics are to be con 
sidered as doctrinal definitions, and unalterable ? p. 112. 

INFALLIBILITY. Why this general expression Infalli 
bility was avoided by the Vatican Council? p. 51 ; ex 
planation of the true meaning of the constitution of the 
Vatican Council on the infallible teaching office of the 
Roman Pontiff, pp. 52-61 , whether the Pope possesses the 
gift of Infallibility in the exercise of all his official pre 
rogatives ? p. 55 ; in what cases he does possess this 
privilege, p. 56, cf. notes at end of chapter ii. See alsc 
the word DEFINITION ex cathedra. 

INSPIRATION. Whether the Pope, when he pronounces r 
definition ex cathedra, is directly inspired by God, as the 
Prophets were of old, or whether he is assisted by r 
special grace attached to his office, which prevents hin 
from going wrong when he is formulating the faith of 
the Church, contained in Scripture and tradition ? pp 
96, 60, and see notes A and B, end of c. ii. 

INTENTION. Whether the intention of the Pope to mak< 
such and such a declaration dogmatic an intention no 
expressed, but resulting from certain facts can cause i 
to be regarded as a dogmatic definition ? p. 83. 

JUS PENALE. Whether the Popes are infallible in th< 
domain of penal law, even in ecclesiastical penal law 
p. 87, cf. p. 58. 

Index. 1 6 1 

JUS PUBLICUM. Whether the principles recognised in the 
Jus Publicum of the Middle Ages exercised an influence 
upon the acts and declarations of Popes at those times ? 
p. 137, cf. p. 119-122. 

have always had divine doctrine for their foundation and 
origin ? p. 136 ; whether the principles on which the 
ecclesiastical legislation of the Popes was founded, and 
from which it started, ought to be counted as infallible 
definitions? pp. 137, 138. 

OMNIPOTENCE. Whether the expression, Omnipotence 
of the Pope, is adniissible ? p. 150, cf. p. 67. 

POPE. Whether the Pope, in the province ecclesiastical, 
always acts as Pope, as Head of the Church ? p. 130, note. 

PENAL LAWS and SENTENCES. Whether penal enactments 
of Popes, penal sentences pronounced by them, have 
anything to do with Infallibility? pp, 101, 112-114. 

PERSONA PRIVATA of the Pope. Distinction between 
the Pope considered as Pope and considered as a private 
person. Whether the Pope can err in matters of faith 
as a private person ? pp. 129-131, cf. p. 91 ; supposing the 
Pope to write books as an author, whether it is neces 
sary to hold the ideas on religious matters to which he 
there gives expression to be definitions ex cathedra ? p. 
131, cf. p. 79. 

PLAN of Mgr. Fessler s work, pp. 25, 26. 

PROPOSITIONS (DOCTRINAL). Whether the doctrinal pro 
positions attributed to the Popes by Dr. Schulte ought 
to be regarded as infallible definitions? p. 118; exami 
nation of the declarations and acts of the Popes from 
which Dr. Schulte has drawn these doctrinal proposi 
tions, p. 78-118 ; what ought we to think of these decla 
rations and acts in themselves ? p. 85, and note, pp. 119 

1 62 Index. 

POWER OF THE POPE. What objecta i.e. subject-matter- 
come under the power of the Popes ? pp. 55-58 ; with 
regard to what portion or portions of this subject matter 
has Infallibility been conferred upon the Pope? p. 58 ; 
what is the duty of a Catholic in all these matters, even 
in those matters to which Infallibility is not applicable.? 
pp. 57, 58, cf. p. 75, note. 

SYLLABUS. Is the Syllabus one of those doctrinal propo 
sitions of which the Vatican Council speaks? pp. 1.08, 
109, and preface, p. 23 ; examinatian of a passage of the 
Syllabus, p. no, cf. pp. 74, 75. 

TEACHING OFFICE. Is it true, as Dr. Schulte says, that 
Holy Scripture does not contain any passage relative to 
the teaching office of St. Peter? p. 133; why, among 
the different functions of the supreme ecclesiastical 
power, the teaching office alone has received from God 
a special grace ? p. 134. Infallibility of the Papal teach 
ing office, see INFALLIBILITY. 


THEOLOGY. What is the special business of theology as 
regards revealed truth ? p. 29. 

UNALTERABLE. What the Vatican Council means by 
saying that the decisions ex cathedra are by their nature 
unalterable? p. 59; are the disciplinary laws of the Popes 
unalterable ? p. 60.